Curious to hear others opinions before I answer. On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 10:23:31 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > On 29 Jun 2018, at 13:24, ronaldheld <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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 [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.
