> On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:27, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8/17/2018 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:50, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/16/2018 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:33, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>> And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum >>>>>>> structure, >>>>>> I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum >>>>>> logic. It is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this >>>>>> predicts new things. >>>>> >>>>> What are they? >>>> >>>> The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum logical >>>> terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the reach of my (old) >>>> theorem prover. >>> >>> So they are not testable. >> >> ? >> >> Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and thus not >> tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you arrive at your >> conclusion. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD. >>>>>> Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to >>>>>> progress. >>>>> >>>>> Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you cannot >>>>> even define a probability amplitude that is linear? >>>> >>>> >>>> Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as quantum logic. >>> >>> That's a far cry from quantum mechanics. >> >> But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to be >> false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test this. >> >> The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. >> Physicalism is *already* refuted. > > No. It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted. The assumption > that what is physical cannot account for what is mental because the mental is > substrate independent and therefore is independent of all substrate. The > last doesn't follow.
What is a substrate? How you test its primary existence? How does a substrate select a computation, given the mechanist first person indeterminacy ? 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.
