> On 28 Aug 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:46:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Aug 2019, at 13:31, John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> > >> yet again to who knows what because I still say "yes" to the digital doctor. >> That's why I never bothered to learn Brunospeak, > > > That is a trolling technic. > > Why do you keep using the argument of those who want to show that they have > no argument? > > You are the one “religious” here. You are the one talking like if you do have > found evidence from primary matter, or for physicalism. But you have not show > them, and you get trapped by the fact you says yes to a digitalist doctor. > > I understand your appeal to a mystical notion of computation, but it has to > be different from “emulating a universal machine” to provide a role for some > primary matter. Maybe some universal number will play key role in the laws of > the machine’s observable, but to get the quanta without eliminating the > qualia, we have to extract that number, if it exists, by the modal variants I > described here and in my papers. > > Bruno > > > > > > You realize that if Fictionalism is true > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ > <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/> > > (and there is no demonstrable evidence against it), then > > There are no models of arithmetic consisting of numbers. > > because numbers do not exist in the first place).
With mechanism, fictionalism can be judged true for analysis, real number, the existence of limit, and eventually for the whole physics. But it is non sensical for elementary arithmetic. To say that natural numbers do not exist is problematic, because you have to believe in numbers to believe in physical laws. If numbers do not exist the equation x -2 = 0, has no solution, which does not make sense to me. If you define existence by physical existence, then Mechanism explains why some things exists, and why some other things do not exist, without assuming a primary physical existence notion. If natural numbers do not exist, universal machine do not exist, and physics, which is apparently Turing universal would not exist either. Arithmetic is consistent, so there is a model of arithmetic. To show that there is no model of arithmetic, you need to prove 0 = 1 in some simple theory of arithmetic. My first point is that you cannot have mechanism and materialism together, then my second point, which is much more technical, is that the empirical world confirms Mechanism, and is refuted by its inability to handle consciousness, when not eliminating it. Ito be honest, I have no clue what you mean by “natural number do not exist”. I can understand that they don’t exist physically, but with Mechanism, we know that “physical existence” is not a criterium for being fundamentally real. Physical existence is phenomenologically real. 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/677096f2-7d6b-4141-a93c-2bdb4b3d67cc%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/677096f2-7d6b-4141-a93c-2bdb4b3d67cc%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/06A1D2DE-4FEC-43D8-9D26-3D8FF2A57489%40ulb.ac.be.
