> On 29 Jun 2018, at 13:24, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Comments?   Note that I am not a Brunoist or AR.

Everyone is AR, except ultra-strong-finitim (I have not yet found one). Non AR 
is the belief that 2+2 is not equal to 4, to put it roughly. 

Brunoist? Not sure what that could mean, as I make no opinion public, still 
less any claims of truth. Only proof in a well defined theory, and this only to 
show it testable. I am not a philosophers of the type of suggesting any new 
idea. I just show that two old ideas: mechanism and materialism are 
incompatible, and can be tested, and that if we count the evidences, both 
empirical and theoretical, all the evidences accumulated so far side with 
mechanism.

Your link to a text by Geroch and Hartle is not bad at all, but what I shown is 
more general and more strong: if we assume mechanism in the cognitive science, 
then the measurable numbers cannot be all computable. I am not sure if this is 
not already the case with simple QM, but the proposal to extract this (and 
confirms Mechanism) using gravity might be interesting, although it seems to me 
quite speculative, given the lack of physical theory coherent on this. Also, if 
true, and if mechanism is true (in cognitive science — not in physics)that 
might not be testable, but I have to reread their stuff to see how to explain 
this with enough detail.

You can relate all this with my claim that mechanism in cognitive science 
entails non-mechanism in the physical science and in psychology, theology, etc. 
Digital physics is incompatible with digital psychology/theology, as I have 
explained here many times (but I am ware it is subtle). Have you grasp the 
first person indeterminacy? The rest follows easily from it. Keep in mind that 
for a mechanist, the mystery is that the physical laws appears to be too much 
computable, a priori, without the self-reference nuance brought by 
incompleteness, mechanism predicts white noise and white rabbits, more than any 
computations. But then the incompleteness just shows that this cannot be used 
to refute mechanism, and that the testing has to be more sophicticated, and up 
to now, QM, well, the SWE, confirms mechanism.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to