> On 20 Dec 2018, at 01:24, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12/19/2018 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 22:36, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/18/2018 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> On 17 Dec 2018, at 21:43, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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”. >>>> It means a place without which we cannot start at all. >>>> >>>> To say that matter is primary means that we can’t explain matter without >>>> assuming its existence, and so it means that matter appearance cannot be >>>> entirely phenomenological. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> More or less OK. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 3. Arithmetic exists. >>>> That has no meaning. Ll what is asked here is just if you are OK with >>>> axioms like >>> What does it mean to be "OK with axioms"?? I'm OK with any axiom anyone >>> wants to reason about. >> >> Why do you discuss then? >> >> I just don’t believe what you say, and if your kids come back from school >> with any proposition contradicting the axioms below, if you notice it, you >> will put your kids in another school. >> >> You praise, like me, the success of Mars Robot (opportunity, curiosity, …). >> Those robots would never ended on Mars without people strongly agreeing with >> the axioms below. >> >> To say “I am OK with any axioms” is like saying I am OK with any theory, or >> with any believer. But personally, I would not take a plane if I learn that >> the pilot believes that clouds and thunders are elephants playing bowling in >> the sky. >> >> The point of metaphysics is … getting real, if only for some instant. > > I wrote "I'm OK with any axiom anyone wants to reason about." That doesn't > mean I'm OK with claims that the axioms are true.
OK. Fair enough. (Although I doubt you would consecrate a lot of time to reason about Flat Earth theory, or about Santa Klaus or the sex of Angels …). Bruno > > Brent > >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>>> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z >>>> 2) If x = y then xz = yz >>>> 3) If x = y then zx = zy >>>> 4) Kxy = x >>>> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz) >>>> >>>> Or like >>>> >>>> Classical logic + >>>> 1) 0 ≠ s(x) >>>> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y) >>>> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) >>>> 4) x+0 = x >>>> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y) >>>> 6) x*0=0 >>>> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Conclusions: >>>>> 4. Arithmetic instantiates all possible computations and this includes >>>>> the class of conscious computations. >>>> No, that is not a conclusion here. That is a theorem in arithmetic. >>> Theorems are conclusions of logical inferences. >>> >>>> Yes, for the second part, as all computation are emulated in any reality >>>> satisfying the axiom above, then with mechanism, that includes all >>>> conscious experiences. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> You forget that the physical reality is a FIRST PERSON inference and that >>>> it has to take into account all computations (notably below its >>>> substitution level) making physics into a measure problem, and the measure >>>> one has to obey to at least one of []p & p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & >>>> p, with p computable (sigma_1). All three give quantum logics, so there is >>>> still some room for different “philosophies” according to which one is >>>> closer to nature. >>> I forget?? Have you proven those things from the above axioms. I don't >>> think you've even shown there is "FIRST PERSON" or a "physical reality". >>> >>> Brent >>> >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> I reverse the representation by Goldblatt on the logic of those material >>>> hypostases. That gives a quantum logic, and that is arithmetically >>>> complete, and richer than the QL inferred on Nature, and if mechanism is >>>> correct, all probabilities will be derived from a “Gleason theorem” in the >>>> semantic of some of those material mode. It is technical, as we could >>>> expect, and it relies in part to that important representation theorem of >>>> minimal quantum logic in the modal logic B. We found such logic B-like for >>>> all three material self-)referential modes. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 [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] >>> <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] > <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.
