On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 6:13:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Dec 2018, at 21:28, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > If some higher-order Gödelian arithmetical process is involved in some > sense in the making of consciousness, then it's matter that is doing it. > > > > I don’t see evidences for this, nor theoretical reason (other than the > materialist ontological commitment, which is better to avoid in metaphysics > when we apply the scientific method. > > > > > Matter and Arithmetic are like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. > > > Arithmetic is far less mysterious than mind and matter. For matter, we can > say that modern physics has made it even more mysterious. If we want a > primitive matter notion, it cannot be boolean (like the Aristotelian) one, > and a non boolean primary matter is quite a bizarre notion. But with > mechanism, a non boolean primary matter is expected and explained from > elementary arithmetical proposition shared by al scientists. > > The idea is to start from what we agree on, adding as few assumptions as > possible, to explain the complicated happenings, and this in way which can > be tested. > > Bruno > > >
Are there numbers "all the way down"? Or is there stuff (something else) "down there"? *Matter compilers* make stuff, not (numerical) simulations of stuff. From an "engineering" perspective, that distinction matters. *Mechanochemistry at the Single Bond Limit: Towards "Deterministic Epitaxy" * Philip Moriarty - University of Nottingham - https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/people/philip.moriarty Brigitte Nerlich - University of Nottingham - https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/expertiseguide/sociology-social-policy/professor-brigitte-nerlich.aspx https://app.dimensions.ai/details/grant/grant.4889014 Abstract *Can we manipulate atoms just like we control bits of information in a computer? Could we ever build a matter compiler - a device that positions atoms, one by one, to construct a macroscopic product like a table, a computer, or even a building? In other words, could we ultimately push 3D printing all the way down to the atomic level? This is the essence of the highly controversial "molecular manufacturing" concept put forward by Eric Drexler in the eighties, originally inspired by Richard Feynman's thoughts on the ultimate limits of miniaturisation back in the late fifties. Drexler's ideas were, and continue to be, widely critiqued and criticised by many (including the authors of this proposal) but at the core of his molecular manufacturing scheme is a demonstrably valid process: computer-controlled and atomically precise chemistry driven purely by mechanical force. This type of mechanochemistry is now implemented in the lab (and studied theoretically) by a small number of research groups across the world, including those involved in this proposal. Our core objective is a little less grandiose than the fabrication of a macroscopic or, indeed, microscopic object using single atom manipulation. Nonetheless, it is an exceptionally challenging goal: the fabrication of a 3D object -- a nanoparticle -- an atom at a time. ... * - 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 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.
