> On 23 Jun 2019, at 13:44, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 6:27:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 21 Jun 2019, at 14:38, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 6:22:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 20 Jun 2019, at 19:42, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:32:20 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:28:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 20 Jun 2019, at 12:52, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Logic is mere heuristics. >>> >>> I don’t understand this. >>> >>> Logic is a branch of mathematics, which can be used correctly or >>> incorrectly, like all branches of mathematics. >>> >>> In that branche, we study many different sorts of logics, like in Algebra >>> we study many different sorts of algebraic systems. >>> >>>> >>>> It is not Holy Writ the LORD God wrote into Stone Tablets. >>> >>> >>> Of course. Especially that there are a lot of Logics. But in computer >>> science and in math we use classical logic, not because it would be more >>> true, but because it is simpler, even to explain the non classical logics, >>> that we might need in some domain. >>> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Logic is a branch of mathematics [correct], and mathematics is a genre of >>> fiction. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Isn't it odd [back to the Topic] that some think that the Bible and Qur'an >>> are (texts in a genre of) fiction, but mathematical texts are not? >> >> The bible suggests that PI is equal to 3. >> >> Measurement, or calculation suggests that PI is bigger than 3. Reflexion and >> reasoning explains that PI is not rational, nor algebraical, etc. >> >> I understand that mathematics is concerned with immaterial things. Calling >> them fiction a priori beg the question of the Aristotelian/platonic divide. >> Fiction usually refer to false, and so might be abusive in this context. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> It seems like a funny term to apply. > > Funny? OK. But, Imo, also misleading, especially in this “postmodern era” > which relativize truth too much, except the material universe, which, when we > assume Mechanism, is precisely more fictional than arithmetic. > > Bruno > > > > I still don't know what "assume Mechanism" means.
? I have recently explained this. As I said, it YD, i.e. the “yes doctor” hypothesis that we can survive with a digital brain or body (or body + finite part of the environment). I add CT to make clear that I use “digital machine” in the precise mathematical sense of Turing. I know you don’t like CT. Is that the problem? Or is it YD? > > It sounds like "assume Turing Machine". (to apply as a model to what domain, > though?) That would be like the “strong AI” thesis, which assumes that some Turing machine can think, or be conscious. That does not imply Mechanism, because the fact that machine can think does not entail logically that only machine can think. > > (Physicists today tend to think reality is a Turing Machine. That's "assuming > Mechanism”.) Yes, but this Digital Physicalist hypothesis cannot work. If the physical universe is a machine, or the output of a machine, that would trivially entail Mechanism, but Mechanism entails that the physical reality cannot be a machine a priori, given that to get any piece, even of the physical vacuum, we would need to execute the entire universal dovetailing to get the first person indeterminacy right. So Digital Physics is inconsistent all by itself. It entails mechanism, and mechanism entails its contrary, so it entails its contrary. Digital-physics entails not-digital-physics. Now, the non computable aspect of physics might be just that first person indeterminacy, as QM and Mechanism suggests. Bruno > > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89d6d9c8-91a7-4599-bb0c-aaf548a1a3f2%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89d6d9c8-91a7-4599-bb0c-aaf548a1a3f2%40googlegroups.com?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/061B961D-FD24-4F1E-A174-0D0E90FEAB75%40ulb.ac.be.
