> On 26 Oct 2019, at 21:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/26/2019 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/25/2019 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> The genuine problem is that if consciousness is produce by a digital >>>> mechanism, then there is an infinity of mechanism which produces it, and >>>> the theory of matter has to become a statistics on personal (or first >>>> person plural personal) histories (computations involving Löbian machines). >>>> >>> In materialism there are no infinities. They are just Platonic pipe dreams. >> >> In mechanism there is no infinities. > > Then stop referring to "an infinity of mechanism which produces it”.
I cannot do that. It is like with then natural numbers. Understanding the finite things will automatically refer at the metamevel something infinite. That is why it is crucially important to distinguish the ontology from the meta discourse about it, which belongs to the internal phenomenology of the finite things. The explanation is brought by the machine’s phenomenology. You ask me something which is just impossible. You could aswel ask me to prove that arithmetic is consistent, without using more than the arithmetical assumptions. >> The infinities are phenomenological. > > There are no infinities in phenomenon either. Our “understanding” of the infinite is phenomenological. > > > >> Analysis is as much part of the machine phenomenology than physics. No real >> numbers! >> >> It is the materialist which needs infinities and a lot of magic to associate >> my consciousness to one machine in arithmetic, and not to the potential >> infinitely > > I'm glad you recognize there's a difference between "potential" and "real"; a > distinction this list is founded to obfuscate. OK. But the notion of “real” is what is discussed, and it is a tricky notion. But with mechanism, things get very simple and transparent: what is “real” is what is assumed, but what is lived is the experience from inside. There is no axiom of infinity to get the ontology right, but we need an infinity of axiom of infinity to get the phenomenology of the machine, a bit like we need to assume analytical tools to better understand the behaviour of prime numbers, or the partition of the natural number. Since Gödel’s 1931 paper, we understand what that has to be like that. Bruno > > 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/34d21ea2-ebbd-4ccf-4328-ee86edfa6161%40verizon.net. -- 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/C2835E6B-1677-4C0A-9A44-1A3FC6537DB3%40ulb.ac.be.
