On 5/30/2018 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is your invention as a straw man to be defeated by computationalism.
? (I have no clue why you say this)
....
but most also suppose that it is not "primary”.
Philosophers were more clear on this before +523. But since then, most
take for granted primary matter.
That's why I say it is a straw man you use rhetorically! If
philosophers don's explicitly repudiate matter and accept the reality of
PA, you say they are "taking for granted primary matter".
They look for a deeper more unified ur-stuff
Which mean they still believe either in primary matter, and/or
physicalism.
No it doesn't mean that. How could you know that they mean that except
by noting that they don't reify mathematics...as you want them to.
That cannot work with computationalism. Or, explain how anything can
select the computations in arithmetic and makes them “real”, to how
they make the arithmetical computation “unreal”.
Of course something can make some computations unreal, namely their
non-existence in the world. All you have to do is note that some things
exist and some don't; a very simple and uncontroversial observation.
and many physicists have followed Wheeler and Tegmark in thinking of
the equations of mathematical physics as simply defining the ur-stuff.
Reintroducing some primary matter in the picture. As I have explained
“primary matter” does not need to be “material” for physicalism to be
true, and with computationalism, physics *has* to be retrieved from
the sigma_1 sentences, and their structures imposed by incompleteness.
You seemed to have understood this awhile ago. I am unsure what you
are missing now, of what could have change your mind. Physicalism just
avoid the consciousness problem, and by this, missed the metaphysical
or theological and non physical origin of the physical appearances and
their laws.
No, I didn't change. I noted sometime ago that your computationalism
cannot work without the physical world. You say the physical world is
recreated by computations implicit in arithmetic. To which I reply,
"Fine, but then you have to also explain all the stuff that doesn't
happen. To explain everything, fails to explain at all."
I am patient, because I am aware of the 1500 years of brainwashing in
the domain, which is an easy one, because it is a comfortable lies
which please to the wishful thinkers.
Don't play the victim. This philosophy, not politics. No philosopher
should care about public acceptance.
Brent
Bruno
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
