On 9/10/2018 9:34 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 3:25:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 9 Sep 2018, at 13:06, Philip Thrift <[email protected]
<javascript:>> wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 5:28:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 8 Sep 2018, at 23:53, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
Bruno MarchalWrote:
/> I cannot see primary matter.In fact I am not sure
what you mean by matter, or by “mathematical-material
universe”.[...] I have proven (40 years ago) that
materialism (the belief in some primary matter, or
physicalism) and Mechanism are incompatible./
If you don't know what "matter" means then you certainly
don't know what "primary matter" means, so what the hell did
you prove 40 years ago?
That if mechanism is true, the observable has to rely on a
sophisticated “sum” on all computations.
Matter = observable
Primary matter is the doctrine by Aristotle according to
which there is a primary physical universe, or a primary sort
of (non mathematical) reality from which those observable
would have emerge. With mechanism, it can be shown that the
laws pertaining on the observable have to be reduced to some
mode of arithmetical self-reference.
I'm not even going to ask what you think physicalism means
because any such answer has to include physics and physics
has to involve matter which you admit confuses you.
No, it does not confuse me. It is just shown inconsistent to
believe that we have to assume its existence. A realm is
primary if it cannot be reduced to some other field”. May
believe that biology is not primary, because it can be
reduced (apparently) to chemistry and physics. Similarly,
with Mechanism, physics is reducible to number theory or
Turing equivalent.
And for the same reason I'm not going to ask about
"Mechanism" , the reply would only contain yet more words
you can neither define nor give examples of.
Digital Mechanism is the doctrine that there is a level of
description of our body such that we can survive with a
(physical) digital brain or body, if it faithfully represents
our body’s functionality at that description level.
Bruno
I seems /possible /to me that there could be a matter
decompiler/transporter/compiler that takes *me*, decompiles *me*
into some code, transports that code, and compiles that code into
a digital-technology-based "brain" in some sort of "body". And it
would be *me 2*. and "I" would exist again.
But if it never recompiled me into any kind of material output -
I don't think I would exist anymore.
How would you, or how would any universal machine, be able to
distinguish (without observable clue, by personal introspection)
if it has been recompiled in a physical reality or in a
number-theoretical reality imitating my brain below my
substitution level?
It seems to me that you need to give to matter some special role
in consciousness which cannot be recovered by anything
Turing-emulable, but then mechanism is false.But invoking
(primitive) Matter in this way seems arbitrary, and it
re-introduce the mind-body problem. It seems like adding something
difficult to avoid a consequence. If you survive only because the
physical stuff emulate correctly the computations associated to
your experience, then you will survive also in arithmetic, which
emulates all computations. Indeed the notion of “emulation” of a
machine by another has been discovered in arithmetic.
Bruno
If my (material) body was decompiled into some compressed code, that
code was stored, and then later that code was compiled (with a
biocompiler - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biocompiler - for
example) I might be able to check if my new body was different from my
old body by comparing medical records.
If the person who compiled my code into my new body told me that my
code had been compiled - not into my previous material reality - but
into a numerical reality. I'm not sure how that would change my life.
I'd probably say, "Yeah, sure" and still be a materialist.
- pt
That's a point I've made before. It's all very well to say that you
could be replaced by an abstract machine (e.g. arithmetic) running your
code; but to make that work there would also have to be an emulation of
your environment, including its physics. So then it's not clear that
anything is different. It becomes a metaphysical just-so story.
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].
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.
