On 12/29/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Dec 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/24/2018 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers”
aka universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent
of the initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent”
in the sense of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory
does not depend on which universal machinery we talk about).
Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of
the universal machine on all computations going through (any) of
its states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called
geographical and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness
requires long and deep histories.
So what expectation has measure 1.0? Can you show that it
includes conservation of energy-momentum for example?
You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is
not yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.
Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is
simply wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem,
there is no other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.
Of course there are other choices: (1) Mechanism is wrong
Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now,
unlike the materialist metaphysics.
(2) Your argument is wrong
Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume
this, you have to find the mistake.
One mistake is in inferring from the possibility of "accidental"
implementations of computations instantiating conscious thoughts that
no physical implementation is required at all.
That is equivalent with the creationist critic of the theory of
evolution. They could say that the mistake is in inferring from the
possibility of “accidental” implementations of computations in a
physical reality instantiating conscious thoughts that no God
intervention if required at all.
The mistake done here by the creationist or the materialist is in
invoking an ontological commitment to avoid testing a simpler
(shorter) theory which avoids that ontological commitment..
It's not a commitment. It's an empirical observation.
Another is supposing that an "ideal machine" that
knows/believes/proves every theorem of arithmetic is a reasonable
model of conscious thought.
It is not a model/theory of conscious thought. It is just that any
sound digital machine looking inward discovers immediate indubitable
(and thus knowable) truth which are non sharable,
If they are knowable, why aren't they sharable? You seem to be trapped
by identifying know=provable.
non provable and non rationally justifiable, which explains pretty
well the “conscious” experience, without any supplementary
ontological commitment.
It's a bug not a feature when your minimalist ontology prevents your
theory from predicting anything (or less than everything).
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].
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.
