On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > This is true! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files > > "Magic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)>" is described > as being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers > and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic > spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient > powers and opening gates to other dimensions. > > > > > I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a > time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water > into wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would > be that Jesus is a good prestidigitator. > > Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their > craft in prestidigitation. > > Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the > appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, > because incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but > also incredibly gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing > almost everything. Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is > even consistent that we are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f). > > Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. > > Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus > missed physics, theology, etc.) > > At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and “[]p > & p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness > against Mechanism. > > So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame > of Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than > Wolfram, and more interestingly-wrong. > > I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing > them with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with > the 8 modes of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the > universal machine having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or > soft relative implementation. > > Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or > through the Theaetetus of Plato. > > Bruno > > > > >
Wolfram thinks that his H*ypergraphic Universe Modeling (HUM) language* can lead to a unified QM+GR theory. Do you think consciousness is needed for this unification? That would be bizarre. @philipthrift > -- 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/d1e6375b-4e54-4942-9623-cb9146d88419%40googlegroups.com.
