> On 11 Apr 2018, at 21:02, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 4/10/2018 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be >>> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >>> >>> >> We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory >>> because it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is >>> >>> > That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not. >>> >>> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe >>> works then it can't be fundamental. >> >> ? >> >> I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply >> incomplete, not advance enough, etc. >> >> When a theory systematically misses some important fact, like physics miss >> consciousness (without adding more magic), we can suspect it to be not >> fundamental, but that still does not prove it is not. > > Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either. You start > by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness.
You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a digital brain prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add magic in the brain). This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, computers, etc. But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”, which means limiting the statements on the semi-computable propositions (the sigma_1 sentences) and looking at all the platonic nuances enforced by incompleteness. Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, known, undoubtable, yet non definable, and non provable, then those nuances shows that a machine which looks inward does met notion pertaining on itself obeying that semi-axiomatic definition, like the machine meets a notion of matter, which obeys quantum logic, and has to give a measure on them. (Assuming here both QM is correct, and that we are not in a normal malevolent simulation, to be exact). Bruno > > Brebt > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.