> On 13 May 2019, at 20:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/13/2019 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> We must assume the existence of a physical reality, sure, but we don’t need >> to assume that the physical reality is fundamental or independent of the >> mind of the universal numbers (which requires only arithmetic). > > If we must assume it then that's what I'd call fundamental.
That depends on what goal “must” refer to. To understand the thought experiences, we *must* assumed implicitly a physical reality, but we don’t need to assume at that stage that the physical reality is ontological. Better to be neutral on this. Then the reasoning eventually has to conclude that this physical reality, assumed at the start, has to be recovered by a physics reducible to arithmetic of Turing equivalent. To assume something to understand an argument is not the same as to assume something in a theory of everything, especially if the assumption is only used to make clear (in everyday terms) what at some point (step 7) becomes a purely (meta) arithmetical problem. 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/907bc218-d5bc-7e71-a760-19c3224ffcef%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/907bc218-d5bc-7e71-a760-19c3224ffcef%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/18CD5982-9B8A-4B7A-9FAA-89F82308C265%40ulb.ac.be.
