On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 6:19:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jun 2019, at 20:02, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > But why shouldn't *physics from arithmetic (universal numbers) *be > questioned as other interpretations are? What is an experiment that > supports this? > > > Because of my working hypothesis (Mechanism). Then the reasoning shows > that we cannot invoke an ontological commitment to solve the > computationalist mind-body problem, which is reduced to a derivation of the > apparent physics (testable) from arithmetic and its self-rerefntial modes > implied by incompleteness. > > (And I still don't know what *Mechanism* is.) > > > It is YD + CT. > > YD = “Yes doctor” (for the digital brain or body transplant) > > CT = Church’s thesis, or Church-Turing. Emil Post is the first to have > postulate this. > > > See my recent explanations. Tell me if you have a problem with YD, or with > CT, or both. > > > I am criticizing those who want to form a *Physics Ecumenical Council* to > rule (PEC) on what is a "legal" interpretation. > > > CT has nothing to do with physics. I am actually the one who insist that > physics becomes a branch of machine psychology, when we assume Mechanism. > > > *The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that > solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, which concern faith or morals, > and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are > often labeled as 'Canons' and they often have an attached anathema, a > penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the > teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical > council is dogmatic, but that every aspect of an ecumenical council is free > of errors or is indefectible.* > > Now > > *MWI is considered by some to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific > because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense > that no information can be passed between them. Others claim MWI is > directly testable. Everett regarded MWI as falsifiable since any test that > falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI.* > > How should the PEC rile on MWI? > > > > Everett is not a new interpretation of QM. It is a new formulation. It is > QM without the collapse postulate, which appearance is explained relatively > to any base. > > > > One way to spot a quack: One who mandates retrocausal models are > inconsistent with QM: > > *Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over > time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had > become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had > started to attain some oppressive features and it was not possible to come > up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or > mythology.* > > > That is only because we are in the Aristotelian era, and that some > scientist talk like if they knew that a material universe exist > *primitively” (Aristotle assumption). Of course that is just the arrogance > of the dogmatic theologian, and it is not science. Indeed, science is still > forbids to tackle theology, and atheists of different countries consume a > lot of energy to keep theology in the hand of the charlatans, that they > defend de facto. > The problem is not science, but its misuse by authoritarians. > > Bruno > > >
As you wrote (the second post in this topic): On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 11:57:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > With Mechanism, there is a “Turing-thropic” sort of retrocausality in the > phenomenology of matter, quite similar to Saibal Mitra’s idea that the > first-person experience backtrack from the cul-de-sac world (dead end). > > That remains to be confirmed in the “theology of the universal löbian > machine", and that requires a *lot* of works. > > Bruno > > > > In *Embodied and disembodied computing at the Turing Centenary:* *Turing’s Titanic Machine?* by S. Barry Cooper http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/pure/logic/computability/BarryTalks/titanic_CACM.pdf *As Samson Abramsky puts it (private communication communication, 2011):* *“Turing took traditional mathematical objects, real numbers, functions, etc. as the things to be computed. In subsequent work in computer science, the view of computation has broadened enormously. In the work on concurrent processes, the behavior is the object of interest. There is indeed a lack of a clear-cut Church-Turing thesis in this wider sphere of computation—computation as interaction."* Add "(embodied) experience" to "interaction". So there is a *beyond-CT* suggested in all of this. @philipthrift -- 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/0542e37b-f0f0-4fa5-98a6-3ecf7208e9d4%40googlegroups.com.
