On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:48 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23 May 2020, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:48 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> If Holebo's theorem remains fundamental problems, then let's move >> everything into virtual reality, and repeat the experiment. >> >> In one case your friend's mind file is deleted and restored from a >> backup, and in another he continued without interruption. Do not the same >> conclusions I suggest follow? >> > > > Thought experiments in virtual reality (where you get to make up the laws > of physics) have no relevance for the world we observe. > > > It is relevant once you assume the minimal amount of Mechanism to make > sense of Darwin, or of Everett, etc. > > If you assume a primitive physical reality, you have to put something non > Turing emulable in the brain so that it can differentiate being run by that > physical reality from being run by arithmetic (which run all computations, > with a specific redundancy from which the physical appearances proceed. But > then, adding that non Turing emulable composant in the brain makes you > violating Mechanism. > Blah, blah, blah. Bruce > At least you are coherent. Unlike some others here, you don’t try to > defend both Mechanism and (weak) Materialism (the existence of some > ontological material reality). Now, I don’t think that there is any > evidences for such primary matter, and a lot of evidence for Mechanism > (from Darwin to QM many-histories). > -- 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/CAFxXSLSCmgXY70D12d1GrciqNJzjbodf5_H9939uJS%3D2L59ymg%40mail.gmail.com.
