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 <ronal...@gmail.com <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 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.
