On Sunday, February 23, 2020 at 3:17:57 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Feb 2020, at 01:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > On 2/22/2020 3:52 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why the incompatibility? Bruno? TIA, AG > > > Bruno's a fundamentalist. You can only have one, really real, true > fundamental ontology. > > > Given the sense of “fundamentalism” in the religious (pseudo-religious) > domain, it might be useful to make precise that I do not defend any theory > or religion. >
You say that over and over again and yet your discourse implies infinite copies of the subject, which has metaphysical implications. The reply over the years has been that the subject feels choices matter on a first person level, but that just polishes up that today, some Nazi or criminal could go: "for every atrocity/crime that I or somebody else commits, there are infinite branches where we do not commit the atrocity, therefore from a third person point of view: responsibility or legal liability are empty subjective structures, based on an erroneous physicalist world view, as finally... determinism, the mystery of reality, and my first person indeterminacy compel me and others to commit such acts, based on UDA computation execution. Everybody's infinite copies are immortal anyway, therefore the optimal stance is to be an opportunistic gangster. I select the computations that run here and which do not via my weapon." This doesn't strike me as metaphysical progress on the mind body problem, it's more like regression into cynical relativism, leading right back to materialism (because why not, since nothing but my consciousness is real?), justified by opportunistic success in absence of more evolved principles. I don't know about you guys, but a candidate for approaching metaphysics with some sobriety has to refute things like genocide, and sending others' children to die, while Nazis hide in bunkers. > I just say that IF we can survive with an artificial brain, then physics > becomes the science of available predictions by universal machine > implemented in arithmetic. And that this makes Mechanism Versus Materialism > testable, and indeed confirmed by the observation, notably by QM without > collapse. There is a "many-world" interpretation of arithmetic (in the head > of all universal numbers), and we can test it. We can use any Turing > universal formalism instead of arithmetic. They all lead to the same > theology, and the same physics. > Yeah, the theology where nobody is responsible for anything, with some partial deniability. That's the usual weaponization of ignorance and not much different than the world stage we find before us. So you can stop complaining at the physicalists and thank yours truly for relieving of the burden. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccd4ef16-8215-4c01-9f12-4ea75e1e577d%40googlegroups.com.
