> On 6 May 2020, at 19:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/6/2020 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> 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. > > Understanding is belief and being true is not the same as existing.
Existing is when the proposition “ExP(x)” is true in some reality. For example Ex(prime(x)) is true in the structure/model (N, 0, s, +, x). And yes, understanding is belief. Nice point. In the machine theory you have that “God” does not exist, and is not even “mentionable”. (Like Plotinus). What exist primitively are the natural numbers, 0, 1, 2, 3, … or with the usual notations: 0, s0, ss0, sss0, …. Nothing else exist “ontologically” or “primitively”. I could chosen the combinators, or the game of life pattern, but most people are more familiar with the natural numbers, and that is a good simple universal machinery, as I assume 0, s0, … but also the RA axioms, and from this I can prove the existence of universal machines and computations, and also of universal machine believing in the induction axioms, which are the one I study. Then for each self-rerential mode you have a notion of existence. Describable in the corresponding modal logic, like with []Ex[]P(x), or withe quantisation ([]<>Ex([]<>P(x)), etc. > >> >> 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. How could you say yes to the digitalist doctor without hoping he will get the number right? You don’t need to believe that 0 exist in a metaphysical sense, you need just to introspect yourself and see if you agree with the usual axioms, i.e. classical logic and 1) 0 ≠ s(x) 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y) 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 4) x+0 = x 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y) 6) x*0=0 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x If you throw away any of those axioms, you lose Turing universality. So if you believe that your computer exist, as a computer, you implicitly do that “ontological commitment” you seem to worry about. The word “digital” as no meaning without the natural numbers. Physicists nowadays assumes much more, like ZFC, to get a base in all Hilbert space, for example. Then physicalist assumes much much much much more, like a primitive matter, or some universal numbers declared more important at the start, and that is refuted with mechanism. Some people add metaphysics on the numbers, where, with mechanism, the number are introduced to be sure we understand the metaphysics which follows, from the number (G and G*) and eventually from the number + mechanism (G1 and G1*). Physicist does not do metaphysics. Except in some paper of cosmology, or on foundation of QM, most physicist are metaphysically neutral. And when done with the scientific method, metaphysics itself must be done in a neutral way. Bruno > > 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 [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/5810dae6-397d-887b-0d37-58271ac80d8c%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/D3017ACE-9761-4374-BA1A-0B82FCC6A2BE%40ulb.ac.be.
