On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:34:48 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Dec 2018, at 19:38, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 3:51:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Dec 2018, at 19:32, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> SNIP >> >>> >>> >>> *No testable hypotheses; conclusios not based on empirical data. AG*. >>> >>> >>> Only since 529. Those proposing theories and empirical verification >>> modes were persecuted. They escaped in the Middle-East, where unfortunately >>> the made “stealing” was made in 1248. >>> >>> Of course, I provide a counter-example, by showing that we can test >>> mechanism/materialism, and the test favour mechanism on materialism. >>> Physics seems to NOT be the fundamental science. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In that domain, you can understand that Mechanism is not compatible with >>>> Materialism, and that the cosmos is not the ultimate reality. Its >>>> appearance comes from something else, non physical. >>>> >>> >>> *Play it again Sam. Succinctly, how do you define Mechanism and >>> Materialism, and why are they incompatible? AG * >>> >>> >>> >>> Mechanism is the idea that our consciousness results only from the >>> physical functioning of the brain, or the body (in some generalised sense). >>> To be “functioning” (and biologically reproductible) implies digitalness >>> (or you can assume it outright). >>> >>> But then it is easy to understand that a universal machine cannot >>> distinguish a computation supporting him/her and executed by this or that >>> Turing complete system. In particular, it cannot distinguish a computation >>> run by a God, or by Matter, or by arithmetic (which is Turing complete). >>> This means that to predict anything empirically, it has to emerge from a >>> statistics on all (relative) computations (seen by the machine). When we do >>> the math, we do recover already that the observable of the universal >>> machine (an arithmetical notion, see Turing) obey a quantum logic, with a >>> symmetrical hamiltonian, etc. >>> Up to now, Mechanism won the empirical test, where materialism remains >>> on the side of the philosophical ontological commitment, without any >>> evidences. >>> >>> Mechanism is just the idea that we can survive with a digital computer >>> in place of the body or the brain. It assumes the existence of a level of >>> substitution where we survive a functional digital substitution. >>> >> >> *Let's assume such a substitution is possible. How do you go from that, >> to some existing "universal machine" doing anything?* >> >> You don’t need to assume that we survive such substitution to get the >> existence of a universal machine. >> > > *You wrote above that we could assume it "outright" -- that mechanism > implies we can survive a digital substitution? So I think you need > mechanism to be true for your theory to be viable. * > > > > I define Mechanism by the hypothesis that we can survive such brain > Digital transplantation. Yes. > > I don’t claim it is true. > > I claim it is testable, and indeed, somehow already confirmed because it > imposed a physics quite similar (up to now) to quantum theory (without > collapse). >
*I don't believe it's testable. Has that been done to any degree? And if it were, I don't see how it would predict quantum theory. AG * > *But then you've already solved the problem of consciousness without going > further, and it seems the conventional, albeit unproved expectation of > materialism. AG* > > > No, Materialism is refuted when you assume Mechanism. > *Which form of materialism are you referring to? Not the form or definition used by Stenger. He never affirms or denies a primal unknown other than possibly energy underlying matter. If you replace mind by digital machine for a person, mustn't the machine depend on matter to do any calculations? AG* Mechanism and Materialism are in complete opposition. > *Do you have a private definition of Mechanism (and Materialism)? AG* You need high infinities in the observable world to attach a piece of > matter to a mind. > We can come back on this when you study the UD-Argument (UD = Universal > Dovetailer) step by step. > > Bruno > > > > > >> The existence of such machine is already a theorem in any Turing-complete >> theory with a bit of induction. It is feature of the arithmetical reality. >> >> *As for physicists being materialists in the sense of believing there is >> nothing underlying matter as its cause, I have never heard that position >> articulated by any physicist, in person or on the Internet.* >> >> You are right. My conclusion has never been problematical with any >> physicists. Only metaphysician or theologian who want to assume the >> existence of a primary physical universe have a problem with this. My >> “enemy” are pseudo-religious believers for whom physicalism is a dogma. >> They are never physicists. The physicists are usually aware that the whole >> story on matter is not yet told, and that the foundation of physics are >> still problematical. Only those who believe they know have such dogma. >> >> Bruno >> >> *AG * >> >>> >>> Non-mechanism assumes actual infinities in nature, and is inconsistent >>> with Darwinism, molecular biology, thermodynamic, quantum mechanics. >>> >>> If the logic of matter (Z1*) extracted from the universal machine >>> structure was violating the empirical physical reality, that would be >>> extraordinary, but, thanks to QM, it fits better with the facts than >>> materialism, which has never succeeded nor even propose an experimental >>> test. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> The god of Plato and the neoplatonist is by definition the fundamental >>>> reality. >>>> >>> >>> *I read some Plato as an undergraduate. Don't recall any "god" in his >>> writings, * >>> >>> >>> He uses the term God. But Plato’s God is simply the truth that we >>> search, with the understanding it is above us. Plato identified it at some >>> point with the “world of ideas”, but the neoplatonist will consider that >>> the world of ideas emanates from some absolute and non describable truth. >>> With Mechanism, the arithmetical truth is enough (and at some point, even a >>> quite tiny part of it will be enough, but in a non provable way). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *or from any source that it defines "fundamental reality". AG * >>> >>> >>> Many scholars agree on this. See the little book by Hirschberger for >>> example. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Today most christians are materialist, and, as I said, materialism is >>>> incompatible with mechanism (in a testable way). >>>> But before 529, many educated christians were still more platonism than >>>> Aristotelian, which are dogmatic on (primitive) matter. >>>> >>>> For a neoplatonist, christianism and atheism is very much alike. >>>> >>> >>> *Then the neoplatonists are totally misinformed and unworthy of trust. >>> AG* >>> >>> >>> Not at all. It is obvious that strong-atheists (non agnostic atheism) >>> always defend the same conception of God than the christians (even if it is >>> just to deny it), and have the same belief in the second God of Aristotle >>> (parity matter). >>> >>> And the strong-atheists helps a lot the christians in bashing the >>> scientific theology of the greeks. Stron-atheism is really basically the >>> same as christianity: it is materialism. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Same conception of god >>>> >>> >>> *No way! Christians believe in a personal god who came to Earth to >>> redeem their sins, a form of theism, and atheists don't believe in any god, >>> * >>> >>> >>> But then conclude that there is no god at all, and that the notion of >>> God available is only the christian one. >>> >>> When we say that God cannot be omniscient (for pure logical reason), the >>> atheists replies by saying that we cannot change the definition. They would >>> have said that Earth does not exist when it was discovered that it is >>> round! Of course, in science we change the definition *all the time*. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *but for you their beliefs are the same? How ridiculous this is! AG* >>> >>> >>> Same belief in Matter (which is the God incompatible with Mechanism). >>> Same belief that God = the Christian God only (total oversight of a >>> millenium of scientific theology!). >>> >>> They don’t have the same belief in God, but they share the same >>> definition (curiously enough). Then, they do share the same belief in the >>> creation. >>> >>> In the Aristotelian view, Mechanism is super-atheists: no Creator, no >>> Creation. >>> >>> In the Plationcian view, Mechanism is super-religious: only God exist >>> (arithmetical truth), the rest emerges from it from internal indexical >>> (given by the logic of self-reference). >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> (even if the atheist uses it only to deny it), and same dogmatic >>>> attitude for the existence of some matter not reducible to immaterial >>>> notions (like in mathematics). >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit 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.
