> On 15 Sep 2019, at 12:12, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:36:54 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would be >> nice to explain what. >> >> Why? So you can dismiss it until a Stanford entry is written for you to >> dismiss with the infamous correct scientific attitude we see advertised here >> in recent months? There are dozens of ways to refute the premisses of not >> one but many things you say. Assuming an albeit countable infinity of >> transcendental objects/properties ontologically, while accusing >> "physicalists" for assuming infinities maliciously for years… > > That contradicts directly my premise, which are YD and CT. On the contrary, I > have insisted many times that analysis and physics are in the derived > phenomenology of the universal machine. I do not assume anything more than > what is needed to prove the existence of the computations. > > Nobody denies the existence of abstractions. Their reality remains a matter > of personal speculation/mysticism.
Well they depend on the theory we use. With mechanism, we need to define machine with enough precision, and that requires top assume many abstract ideas, but usually taught in primary school. > Therefore branding people as "physicalists" for not entertaining particular > personal speculation includes a blame quality that isn't supported by > evidence. It is aggressive, Christian-like, and its merit in scientific terms > is dubious. Not at all. Physicalist have the right to defend their idea, but my point is that physicalism and mechanism, are inconsistent when taken together. All what I show is that Mechanism is testable experimentally, I explain why, and I explain also that the contemporary physics assess Mechanism, and not materialism. > > >> Which is it by the way? Do they assume such because a) they are evil or >> because b) they are stupid/naive? Or is it a superposition? > > Physicalist have to assume some magical things to explain how some > computations are “more real” or “the only one able to make a computation > supporting consciousness”. > > You're trying to escape the question. > > If the amount of magic is a measure here, A measure on what? It cannot be a measure on computations, as this bring back the conclusion that they deny. So what is it? > then why are the alleged physicalists wrong in some hard definite sense? > Because of incompatibility? Peano arithmetic is powerful and entails > unsolvable phenomena that could be argued to be just as magical/red flags for > a coherent ontology; i.e. including phenomena not amenable to explanation and > therefore just as magical. OK. But that sort of “magic” is what Gödel has discovered, an the whole computer science is based upon. Then, once assuming Mechanism, we are confronted with it. > Arithmetic is incompatible with itself in the sense that "mechanism" is > hardly as clear a concept as would be suggested by the type of usage on this > list; i.e. hiding unsolvable attributes that make it much less clear than > "2+2=4" would have readers assume, which is more of a rhetorical move than an > argument. Arithmetic is incompatible with itself? You lost me here. > > > But then, it has to be non Turing emulable, because, if it is, it is already > emulated an infinity of times in arithmetic. That can be proved in Peano > arithmetic, which, typically, do not assume the axiom of infinity, like > Euclid proves correctly the existence of an infinity of prime numbers, > without assuming any infinity in the theory. > Maybe the confusion is here: proving that there are infinitely many things > can be done without assuming an infinity. It lies enough to prove the > existence of some order, and to prove that for each x we can find something > “bigger” than x for that order. > > Nah, it's the double standard of assuming folks to be naive while living with > arithmetic's considerable unsolvable/magical issues. The degree of unsolvability of arithmetic is with us, even without mechanism, but with mechanism, it becomes an explanation and even a solution to many unsolved problem, usually put under the rug by believer in Matter. > > Imagine everybody receives the perfect education concerning these issues: > what merit would arise? A sense of perfect humility and some more precise > appraisal of why nothing can be explained? You mean why some thing cannot be explained. > A non-explanation with the pretense of explanation. It is a theory with means of verification. And the theory explains many things already, like why the physical laws are mathematical, why they are statistical, why they are inference and quantum-like formalism, and all this from arithmetic and the assumption of mechanism. > Do nothing to not be false, thus we my never be false but with the bar so > low, we'll never be able to enjoy anything either, as joy entails at least > some degree of surprise/indeterminacy and loss of control. That contradicts what you say above. You seem not happy with the unsolvable, but here you seem to reclaim it. You lost me completely. > There's a cynical, controlling quality in this discourse that has enforces > the christian style blame discourses. Sorry, I do not understand what you try to say. Bruno > PGC > > > -- > 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/a961178c-608f-423a-9d4b-54c6aa244ca1%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a961178c-608f-423a-9d4b-54c6aa244ca1%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/4619F0C7-8ABD-4B03-8DB7-3744C17DEF68%40ulb.ac.be.
