> On 29 Feb 2020, at 18:13, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2/29/2020 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 29 Feb 2020, at 03:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/28/2020 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28 Feb 2020, at 13:05, Philip Thrift <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only Platonists jump to a belief that there is a ghostly world of >>>>> abstract entities called "numbers" that exists outside of matter (whether >>>>> that matter is your brain or your computer). >>>> >>>> We don’t need this either. We need only to believe that 2+3 = 5, or that >>>> phi_i(j) converges or not converges. The philosophy and metaphysics come >>>> after. >>>> If not, it is like studying the working of my brain to convince myself >>>> that I understand correctly that 2+2=4. That does not work, because my >>>> brain study is based on my belief that 2+2=4. >>>> You could aswel say that Einstein’s theory is circular, because you want >>>> to explain 2+2=4 with Matter, but Einstein’s theory use the numbers, and >>>> assumes they do what they need to give sense to, say, E= mc^2. >>>> >>>> At some point, people have to put *all* the hypothesis on the table, so >>>> that it is clear what is assumed, and what is derived. >>> >>> That doesn't really help because it leaves open the relation between what >>> is assumed to be true and what is actually. That's why reasoning that is >>> not grounded in ostensive definitions and empirically tested is just a game. >> >> Accepting the Aristotelian credo, but I have never found one empirical or >> theoretical evidence for it, > > You just refuse to see it. It's all around you. The evidence is that it > works.
I think that you are confusing the evidences for a physical reality (which are numerous, I think everyone agree on this), with the evidence for a physical reality which would be at the origin of everything, for which there is no evidence at all, and there is arguably a big evidence against (the dream argument, and even more so: the discovery of all computations in Arithmetic). I have shown that such an evidence would be given by a discrepancy between quantum mechanics, and the physics which “is in th head of the universal number”, but, up to now, no evidence have been found (that I know of). > >> and then with Mechanism we know, or should know, that it does not make >> sense. Physicalism + mechanism gives magical power to “matter” by enabling >> it to prevent a Turing machine, 100% similar to you at the relevant >> description level, to be conscious. This raise the question if some holy >> water is not also needed, or the will of some supernatural creature … >> >> Ostensive definition works very well, but not in computationalist >> metaphysics, as ostension happens in dreams, and thus in arithmetic. Physics >> is the science of measuring the relative plausibility of >> computations/dreams, and computer science, predicts quickly the many worlds, >> and the (propositional) quantum formalism, where materialism must still >> eliminate or dismiss consciousness and the mind-body problem. > > Even in philosophizing about consciousness you rely on ostensive definition: > when you write about "seeing red" or "counting" as conscious activities you > are relying on and assuming that it points to what it brings to mind in your > reader. Not in any relevant way with respect to the reasoning. You are the one making an ontological commitment, and then dismissing consciousness, it seems to me. But how could a universal machine makes the difference between being run by a physical machine and by an arithmetical machine. She cannot do that, unless by doing experiment and comparing the result predicted by the physics derived from arithmetic, and the physics inferred from the observation. And this, up now, seems to add evidence for Mechanism, not for Materialism. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c157082-c914-1791-7a01-3ed156f715be%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c157082-c914-1791-7a01-3ed156f715be%40verizon.net?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/AA8AA6FC-5086-4627-8103-CF713839B93F%40ulb.ac.be.
