On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:42:11 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 2:44:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Sep 2018, at 00:34, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about >> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis: >> >> >> Yes, it was proved as a consequence of the Mechanist Hypothesis (well >> before Tegmark introduced it as an hypothesis). >> >> >> >> >> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences >> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the >> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures. >> >> >> What Tegmark missed is the first person indeterminacy, which makes the >> physical reality into a sort of statistics on *all* mathematical >> structures. The physical reality is not a mathematical structure among >> others, but a precise mathematical phenomenon, occurring in arithmetic. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse >> structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide >> Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc. >> >> What are your thoughts. >> >> >> If mechanism is false, both substantial physicalism and non substantial >> physicalism are wrong. Mechanism, in the cognitive science, makes the >> physical reality not Turing emulbale (“digital physics” is incoherent). >> Physics becomes reducible to machine’s psychology, or better, machine or >> number theology. Unfortunately a giant gap remain between physicists (who >> have the right question, but an inadequate metaphysics) and logician (who >> have the right tool but run away from theology and metaphysics). >> >> The main advantage in using Mechanism (properly) is that incompleteness >> justified all the modes of the self, and this makes possible to get a >> precise theory of quanta and qualia. >> >> In this list, we are a bit in advance on this, to be short. I can give >> references if asked. Actually I just gave them in some preceding posts. >> >> What some people missed, is that there has never been any evidence for >> Aristotelian Primary Matter. Materialism will be abandoned as a lasting >> supersitition. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > On the other side it is held that numbers - universal numbers - actually > exist (arithmeticalism) is superstition. > > Even the texts in which the definition of the universal numbers appear are > material: They are seen as electronic dots on a screen in a PDF viewer, or > ink glyphs on paper in a printout, etc. But there is nothing more than that > . > > There is nothing outside matter. >
*Space is outside matter. Why can't you guys admit you're wrong about the MUH? I gave a solid counter-example that puts it in the trash heap of erroneous theories. AG * > > (Materialism is not physicalism.) > > - pt > > > -- 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.
