> On 25 Jul 2018, at 05:47, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute >>> > simplest and with the least assumptions. It comes from pure >>> > mathematical truth concerning integers. You don't need set theory, or >>> > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single >>> > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in >>> > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less. >>> >>> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible >>> algorithms. Another instance of proving too much. >>> >>> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world >>> and only this world that would be something. >>> >>> Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to >>> exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each >>> individual being within that everything should also be able to see >>> everything. >> >> So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really >> happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth") you >> couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able to >> see all those novels play out. >> >> If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you >> shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then you >> can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a criticism of the >> theory. > > However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to reject it.
OK. But then you need to show that incoherence. Of course, not everything exist. There are no squared circles, nor cat being simultaneously dead and alive literally. But all computations are emulated in arithmetic, and mechanism predicts that if we look close enough nature, we must see the symptom of the many computations, which is indeed the case. "Everything exist” is ambiguous, without we postulate clearly the things which we have to assume to exist (and thus exist primitively). Physicalism has been successful, as long as we were not interested in the mind-body problem, but from the start (Plato) many understood that physicalism (not physics) can work only by abstracting from consciousness and first person perpective. Thus has begin to change, with Galilee and Einstein, then even more with Everett, and lastly, with Mechanism and arithmetic. The idea that mechanism and materialism can both be true is what is incoherent. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
