On 5/6/2020 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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.
Understanding is belief and being true is not the same as existing.
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.
A funny thing to say for someone who always invokes and ontological
committment to arithmetic.
Brent
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.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5810dae6-397d-887b-0d37-58271ac80d8c%40verizon.net.
