> On 6 Mar 2019, at 20:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/6/2019 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw man of primitive >>> matter...which I never refer to. >> But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are >> you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling >> consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic. > > My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism of your repeated > claim that you have eliminated and matter and attributing anything to it is > "Aristotles error". My criticism of the theory that arithmetic is a TOE is > that arithmetic proves too much.
That looks like Deutsch criticism on Schmidhuber type of computationalist explanation. But, this omit completely the first person indeterminacy, which not only explains (in a testable way) the origin of the physical laws, but above all makes the physics unique, and invariant for all machines. The postulation of a primary universe, on the contrary, explains only the current first person prediction by using an identity thesis which is inconsistent with mechanism. Physics fails both for the prediction of “seeing an eclipse”, and miss the mind-body problem. Compared to the explanation in arithmetic, there is just no explanation given for the physical experiment and experience. It works very well locally, but only by using an inconsistent metaphysics. In fact, it does not tackle the fundamental question, and gives recipe to make prediction, without attempting to explains why we can be conscious of the prediction. With mechanism we get the whole fundamental science, already axiomatised completely (thanks to Solovay- at the propositional level. I don’t see it explains too much. You might confuse Mechanism and digital physics. Digital physics just assume that there is some u such that phi_u is the physical universe. That reduce physics to arithmetic, but that explains too much, or nothing. And is wrong. With mechanism, even if some u plays some more special role, that choice of u and that role have to be explained, given the differentiation of conscious on all relative computational computations. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 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.
