On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 12:02:23 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Feb 2020, at 22:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > Definitions are in words. How do you define the words. As JKC correctly > points out, examples are more important than definitions. I don't use > physical laws to define natural numbers, I use ostensive definition by > examples...which is exactly how you learned numbers at your mother's knee. > > > Practically? I am OK with this. But when we do fundamental science, >
There is no scientific consensus on what first principles are, or if they even exist. > we must be clear on what we assume, and what we derive, and the point is > that with mechanism, we can no more assume a physical universe. > Then pulling the trigger in the quantum immortality sense doesn't matter. People should do it and see the light. > If we assume a physical universe to explain a first peson prediction, that > would work if that physical universe is not Turing emulable, and, > importantly, that it is able to make my consciousness, or my first person > prediction, related to that physical universe. > There is evidence that most folks, with appropriate training, can see two cities at the same time. > But with mechanism, that consciousness is brought by the corresponding > computation in arithmetic. If not, you need a non computationalist theory > of mind. > The computationalist theory of mind is homemade determinism: it never had nor would it be meaningful for it to have a theory of mind because it couldn't be the large, godzilla of truth. People are not responsible for their actions anyway. But I'm sure that journals of psychology are crazy about your theory of mind and all it illuminates. > If the mechanism by which the physical universe makes me conscious is > Turing emulable, it is automatically already emulated in arithmetic, > through infinitely many occurrences, and the first person prediction > (physics) has to be a statistics on all (relative) computations. > > Mechanism just make precise and rigorous the old and antic “dream > argument”. The LARC experience is a stunning evidence for the existence of > the Higgs Boson, but not a proof, as I can conceive that I will wake up and > realised that this LARC stuff was just a dream. > Same with any of your personal fictions. You want proof, then pull the trigger on any living entity you're attached to, and rationally, correctly, like the good, correct, universal number knowing what's going on: simply not care, it's all UD. Humanism affirms life while your confusions contain a death wish. See quantum immortality. > We cannot prove any ontological evidence from any experience, but of > course we can judge some evidences and accumulation of evidences making > some belief more plausible than other. > We know you can sit around and judge things for 20 years, but it's careless as you don't work on alternatives or refutation in the critical spirit of scientific inquiry. All self-validation under the guise of education. Why education actually? It's all just a dream, where any notion of responsibility or agency in the face of determinism is negated and written in stone. The concern for definitions and axioms only arose when you wanted to reason > about numbers too big to comprehend or write down. > > > > It happens when we search a (fundamental) theory. With Mechanism, we have > to derive physics from machine biology-psychology-theology, that is from > the mathematics of arithmetical self-reference (from qG1*) (G1= G + > (p->[]p). > That is like Shylock with the Venetians: *I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. * So what if some reasoning is sound or correct in somebody's view? That's easy. Madmen and Nazis can do that. Finding explanations for everything is psychologically related to the ultimate, deluded, infinite confession: an apology for existing... which is kinda sad. Who needs a theory of mind, to explain it, when we can enjoy the privilege of whatever ride we appear to have left? 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/880ee9fa-d216-4d09-82af-387d79ee4be2%40googlegroups.com.
