> On 24 Sep 2019, at 19:45, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:32:28 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 23 Sep 2019, at 23:21, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 12:10:00 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Sep 2019, at 14:35, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:28:17 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:21 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> I've just finished Sean Carroll's new book "Something Deeply Hidden" and I >>> thought it was excellent, it makes the strongest case I've seen for the >>> Many World's view of Quantum Mechanics. >>> John K Clark >>> >>> > Did he cover the hubris factor? >>> >>> Why don't you read the book and then you can tell me? And you can also tell >>> me if you still think the man is in "mental decline". >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> Voit said the inner content of the book is fairly well reasoned, but the >>> cover and press coverage BY Carroll, fortifies the quantum myth about MW. >>> And Yes, he's definitely in mental decline regardless of some of the >>> clarity of his quantum presentation. Just toss out the Schroedinger >>> equation after the measurement and you will have peace of mind. AG >> >> >> That is equivalent to accept the theory where it please, and to discard its >> consequences where it is unpleasant. That is a form of instrumentalist >> wishful thinking, which cannot help to improve the theories. >> >> Better accept the consequences, and if you can refute the theory properly, >> then we can progress. If not we run toward the catastrophes. >> >> In the 1930s, many germans have voted for Hitler, despite they were >> sincerely shocked by its racisme and antisemtisme, but then he was so >> promising for redressing the economy. The demagogs exploit that type of >> wishful thinking. >> >> It is the same in metaphysics and physics. You need to be consistent with >> your own theories, or you get pseudo-religions and the useless suffering >> which go with it. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> You're the one who defacto engages in pseudo religion, > > Where? >> aka defacto Platonism. > > On the contrary, I extract the machine theology from what the machine > already tell us, even if that needs today some study of mathematical logic. > > IMO, mechanism is generally accepted among physicists today, as well as many > philosophers; namely, that consciousness is a property of, and depends on > brain and nervous system.
That is not “Digital Mechanism”, strictly speaking. The problem for a non digital mechanist position is that has no mathematical definition of what is a machine. > Most would say NO to the doctor since they're not convinced we know enough to > fully replace our brain and nervous system with computer chips, I would say “no” because I don’t trust the doctor much, but that is not relevant for the issue. Also, we don’t have to understand a brain to copy it at some level, like someone who can draw can copy a Chinese text without understanding it. It will still be understood by Chinese. Now, even such a copy is quite above present day technology, but again, that is not an issue. > and there remains a haunting doubt that computations are all there is to it; > namely, consciousness. Yes, but the theory explains why it is an haunting doubt, and why that doubt will stay with us, even if everyone is uploaded on a digital machinery. Some act of faith are mandatory. > IOW, despite the general belief in mechanism, a healthy skepticism remains. AG Absolutely. Note that I do not defend the truth of mechanism. I just show that it makes physics reducible to the psychology of numbers, although the term “theology” is less misleading than the term “psychology”. >> You can't prove that arithmetic is independent of the physical world, (AG) > The proposition is, if you don’t mind, ridiculous. > > I corrected my prior comment, somewhere, in some relavant thread. Agreed; one > cannot "prove" that arithmetic is logically prior to the physical world. > However, one can assume it -- which you do, Not at all. I assume only that we can survive with a digital brain, and that notion is definable in arithmetic, even a much fewer amount of arithmetic than what is needed to solve a wave equation. The fact that the fundamental reality will be arithmetical is not assumed at all: indeed it becomes a theorem of the digital mechanist theory of mind. We are back at Pythagorus. We assume numbers together with the laws of addition and multiplication, from which we can prove the existence of all computations, from which we prove that the observable is given by a statistics on all computations “seen from inside” (and where “seen from inside” is defined and imposed by the incompleteness phenomenon). > and this IMO constitutes your religious type belief insofar as it seems > unshakeable. AG The theological aspect is only in the belief in the technical physical reincarnation. It is the “yes” given to the doctor. And that is shakeable, even testable. In the 1970s I said that if the logic of the observable (of the Universal machine) is not quantum-like, then I will laim to have refuted Mechanism, or at lest shown that it is not quite plausible. But eventually I got the quantum logic exactly there. That physics is reduce to number theology *is* the result, first explained informally with the Universal Doveteilar Argument, and made mathematical in the technical part. The possibility of this relying to Church’s thesis, which requires arithmetical realism which is only the belief that arithmetic obeys to classical logic. As a scientist I am not interested in any personal opinion, even if that is part of my object study. > > > Where do you see a physical assumption in the axioms I have given. > > You assume computations can discover physical laws, as if computations alone > can supplant the scientific method. See comment below. AG I repeat, I assume only the digital mechanist hypothesis (and this implies the assumptions needed to define what is a computation, and since Church & Co, we know that this is simply elementary arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent, like lambda calculus, or the game of life pattern). I do not assume more than any scientist, and I assume much less than physicalist philosopher, who assume a physical universe, and that is a bit gigantic as *assumption*. > > There are none. No need of metaphysics, nor physics, to learn how to add and > multiply, which is all what we needed, except for the induction axiom, but > this one is already put in the phenomenology. > > The only problem is if you claim that 2+2 is different of 4, which I hope you > don’t. >> and you even go so far as to deny other worlds, relying on word games such >> as other BRANCHES. > I am a scientist. I prefer to not add hypotheses unless they are needed. Then > I *prove* that you cannot use an ontological universe to explain the > appearance of a physical universe, once you work with the Digital Mechanist > hypothesis. It is my working hypothesis. I am agnostic on it, but interested > in studying its consequence, and testing them. > >> If they're just branches and not "worlds", then Carroll is sorely mistaken, >> a fact you cannot see due to your religious beliefs. AG > > All my beliefs are presented as refutable hypothesis, and I never claim if > they are true or false. > > IMO, you DO claim as "true" that arithmetic and computations are the > ontological foundations and precursors for what appears as an external world. Yes, I claim that, but not as an assumption. That is the result of the Universal dovetailer argument. I do not claim that it is obvious. > I'm doubtful of that because I can easily construct the axioms of arithmetic > by observations of the external world. Yes, with Mechanism, it is simpler to explain why arithmetic can be deduce from observation, but that does not make observation priori to arithmetic, given that with mechanism we will explain observation and all brain function through computation, i.e. special number relation. > And I find your reliance on computations unsatisfactory. I rely only on the (digital) Mechanist assumptions. It makes sense, even mathematical sense due to the (extraordinary) this by Emil Post, Stephen Kleene, Alonzo Church, Alan Turing, and some others (all in the 130s, except Emil Post who anticipate the whole thing, from Gödel to the my thesis, in the 1920s). > Specifically, if a monkey can type the complete works of Isaac Newton, does > this constitute "discovery" of any physical laws? Of course not. Thais has nothing to do with the way physics arise in arithmetic. > What about the interplay of theory and observations, aka the scientific > method, That is the correct way to proceed. That is exactly what I do. I show that the laws of physics are in the head of any sound universal machine, so I extract as much physics as I can with today’s tool, and I compare with the observation. If this fits, I learn nothing, and if that die not fits, I am happy because I learn that Mechanism is false. Up to now, I got only that Nature confirms Mechanism, that is, that Nature does not refute Mechanism, and as nature already refute physicalism (or eliminate consciousness) the conclusion is that Plato’s theology seems less wrong than Aristotle theology. > to establish the relative truth of Newton's theory of gravity? Can a computer > or computations do that? I have grave doubts. AG That is why we must do the derivation of physics, and compare. > > > But some people here talk like if they know the truth, so much that they dare > to mock conclusion only because they hurt their conclusion, and this without > studying the reasoning, or dismissing step with infinite word-game. > > If you know that some world exist in some ontological primary way, then you > are the guy doing pseudo-religion or if you prefer pseudo-science I’m afraid. > > I do not necessarily assume the externally appearing physical universe is > ontologically prior to anything. That is ambiguous, due to the word “appearing”. > I am open to a deeper understanding. But as I wrote above, I am hugely > skeptical that arithmetic is the culprit, that is, the defacto creator of our > physical universe. AG It does not create the physical universe. There are no physical universe (in the mechanist theory), there are only computation, and physics emerges from the first person (plural) indeterminacy on all computations which go through or state. It is a many-computation “interpretation” done by almost all numbers (all but a finite number of exceptions) in arithmetic. I can add explanation, but it would help if you assess the step 3 of the UDA (like exposed here: B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno > > Bruno > > > > > >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ead48c9-398b-496d-b21e-85463349ad48%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ead48c9-398b-496d-b21e-85463349ad48%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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6bd48349-4b88-4083-9751-364caed64241%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6bd48349-4b88-4083-9751-364caed64241%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/492514E1-A134-4BB1-9F33-FF4404BC95A0%40ulb.ac.be.
