On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:04:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/11/2018 9:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:29:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/11/2018 12:31 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> No one is refuting the existence of matter, only the idea that matter is >>> primary. That is, that matter is not derivative from something more >>> fundamental. >>> >>> Jason >>> >> >> >> I can understand an (immaterial) computationalism (e.g. *The universal >> numbers. From Biology to Physics.* Marchal B [ >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 ]) as providing a purely >> informational basis for (thinking of) matter and consciousness, but then >> why would *actual matter* need to come into existence at all? Actual >> matter itself would seem to be superfluous. >> >> If actual matter is not needed for experientiality (consciousness), and >> actual matter does no exist at all, then we live in a type of simulation of >> pure numericality. There would be no reason for actual matter to come into >> existence. >> >> >> If it feels like matter and it looks like matter and obeys the equations >> of matter how is it not "actual" matter? Bruno's idea is that >> consciousness of matter and it's effects are all we can know about matter. >> So if the "simulation" that is simulating us, also simulates those >> conscious thoughts about matter then that's a "actual" as anything gets. >> Remember Bruno is a theologian so all this "simulation" is in the mind of >> God=arithmetic; and arithmetic/God is the ur-stuff. >> >> Brent >> > > > I suppose that one can argue that *simulata* can replace *materia* until > the cows come home > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/until_the_cows_come_home>. > > (Simulata people think they are materia. Materia people think they are > simulata. ...) > > But pragmatically, I'm not sure where this leads. Engineers still think > they are pushing matter around to make things. Not simulations of the > things they think are material. > > > The point is that there is no difference. There is no distinction except > in the metaphysics used to talk about it. Engineers don't do metaphysics. > > Bret > > > (For Kant, it was *noumena*.) > > - pt > >
I think by merely being (non-zombie) humans, engineers do metaphysics. Victor Stenger wrote an article about how physicists do metaphysics even when they clam they don't. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ - 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.
