> On 2 Dec 2018, at 13:32, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:26:14 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Nov 2018, at 20:24, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:44:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 27 Nov 2018, at 20:21, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> What is this "primary matter" of which you speak? >> >> >> X is Primary means basically that we have to assume X (or something judged >> enough equivalent). >> >> The idea of primary matter is the (physicalist) idea that we have to assume >> a bit of physics, to get the physical law. It is used by people who dislike >> the idea that matter might be explained without assuming anything physical. >> >> >> >> >> My understanding of "primary matter" is that it is what matter (hyle) is >> before it meets form, hence hylomorphism [ >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism> ]. >> >> Thomas Aquinas thought (from what I've read) that matter is that which gives >> forms individual instances, or "character", like individual trees, or >> people, etc. >> > > That is the usual Aristotelian explanation. It is inconsistent with the > assumption of digital mechanism. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> molecules? >> >> Assuming contemporary chemistry, molecules are explained by quarks and >> electrons, and quantum mechanics. >> >> >> Why are there so many articles today that claim to refute this? > > Read them, and if one convince you, you can explain it here. Note that the > background of those paper are Aristotelian, where Mechanism enforces the > platonic view (if only to define properly what is a computation or machine). > > Bruno > > > > The papers in scientific publications (in recent science news, etc.) mainly > involve positing downward causation: There are chemical laws that cannot be > reduced to physical laws, and these (higher-level chemical) laws are needed > to explain currently "unsolved" problems in chemistry and biochemistry.
Above the threshold of universality, all reductionist theory broke. You can predict perfectly well the transistors, and still have no clue if a program will stop or not. All my interest in arithmetic/meta-arithmetic is that we can see and understand how very simple rule, once Turing universal, leads to transfinite hierarchies of non controllability. Arithmetic is full of downward causation, and circular or spiral causation, at different levels. That should be easy to understand from their self-referential logics and their variants. Bruno > > > - 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] > <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.
