Am Mi, 6. Mai 2020, um 10:41, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>
> > On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the
> >> Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an
> >> identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but
> >> non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if
> >> mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many
> >> computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you
> >> prefer).
> > And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and
> > reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to
> > believe.
>
> The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you
> understand 2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations
> are emulated in (all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is
> assumed in all theories made by physicists. But when you add an
> ontological physical universe, we have no mean to restrict the
> statistics on all computations on the “physical” computations without
> adding some magic in the theory.
>
> So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make
> magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in
> arithmetic.
>
> The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason
> to believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive
> status, which would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to
> reject Darwinism, molecular biology, even most physical equations,
> whose solutions when exploitable in nature are up to now always
> computable.
>
> We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science,
> especially in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given
> for it. But there are no evidence at all. People confuse the real
> strong evidences for physical laws with evidence for laws who would be
> primary.
>
> You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are
> not having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!)
> emulate all computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles)
> cannot feel the difference between being emulated by this or that
> universal machinery.
Yes, I have no problem with any of what you say above.
What I have been wondering about is something else: what exactly is meant by
"primitive"? Does there have to be any X such that "primitive X" is true? This
is a real question, not a rhetorical one.
Hope that you (and everyone else) are doing well!
Telmo
> 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/dc764642-dd49-70b2-e84f-363efe66582c%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/965BBF35-DF8E-4F03-AF43-F9B0D843A1A3%40ulb.ac.be.
>
--
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/96161ef4-ce79-43e0-98a0-288cff950049%40www.fastmail.com.
