On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 8:52:19 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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 >> >> >> I don't know. I think physicists say that there is no place in space where there is actually nothing at all (and everything is somewhere).
- 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.
