On 12/17/2018 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Sure. Any argument showing that the primary universe exist would be a
refutation of Mechanism. That is why we do the test, but they confirm
that the primary universe do not exist, and actually, they refute
already that a primary universe can make sense. That is understood and
normal for most physicists. Only materialist philosophers (dogmatic
believers) have a problem with this, but they don’t argue. They
insult, or talk with dismiss tones, etc.
You ask that a lot of work be done by the word "primary" when it's only
meaning seems to be "a place we start from".
Let me see if I can summarize your theory without all the arguments for
it which, I think, motivate extraneous objections.
Premises:
1. The reason a brain produces consciousness (and non-brains don't) is
that a brain instantiates a certain class of computations.
2. The class of conscious computations can be instantiated differently
and still produce the same conscious thoughts.
3. Arithmetic exists.
Conclusions:
4. Arithmetic instantiates all possible computations and this includes
the class of conscious computations.
5. All possible consciousness exists in arithmetic.
6. All physical reality exists as an inference from conscious thought
and there is no other evidence for it.
I don't necessarily accept those, but I'm willing to consider them as a
theory of everything and see what they predict. One thing you often
repeat is that you can derive QM from them. So what is that derivation?
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
