On 9/19/2019 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Sep 2019, at 22:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/16/2019 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As I said I my other post, it is just Descartes’ idea that our body obeys laws
which are locally computable, made precise by using Turing mathematical
definition of computability. It is the hypothesis that there no magic happening
in the brain, somehow. Or that the brain is Digitally emulable *at some
description level* relevant for staying alive and well.
But then you conclude that physical objects, like brains, are not Turing
computable...and thus arrive at contradiction to your starting hypothesis.
No. As the reasoning show only that the particular matter used in the digital
substitution does not matter, which we knew at the start.
To get a contradiction you need to show that the matter that we observed is
differ,t from the matter brought bay the infinitely many computations
statistically interfering below our substitution level, but we do find there
exactly what nature shows us there.
It's hard to parse what that means. But I think it says that we have to
infer the structure of matter entailed by the UD using some statistics
(not clear which) and compare this to the matter we observed (where? in
the brain? in the digital substitute?). This reminds me of string
theory. It's so complicated we can't figure out what it implies, but
we're sure that if we did there would be no contradiction with observation.
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a83dc9a8-a56d-7629-f5a0-a5a03ffd06ab%40verizon.net.
