> On 7 Jun 2020, at 23:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/7/2020 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. >>>>> >>>>> All proofs are relative to their premises. You just assume arithmetic is >>>>> real. >>>> >>>> To assume arithmetic is real is ambiguous, if not non sensical. >>> >>> A proposition cannot be ambiguous or nonsensical and also proven: "The UDA >>> *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic.” >> >> But the “UDA proves that …” is not derived from “arithmetic is real”. It is >> derived from x + 0 = x, etc. >> >> You seem to confuse the theory/machine (and what its says) with the >> arithmetical reality. Those do not belong to the same level of explanation. >> The arithmetical reality proves nothing: it is not a theory. > > I'm not confused. You made two statements that are implicitly contradictory: > > (1) To assume arithmetic is real is ambiguous, if not non sensical.
It is unclear if by “assuming arithmetic” you are are assuming 0 + 0 = 0, 1 + 0 = 1, etc. or if you are assuming that the theory exists and is consistent (that is: assuming that a model of arithmetic exists, which when formalised assumes much more, like infinite sets, etc.). > (2) The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. UDA shows that we cannot use the assumption that there is a universe to explain why we see a universe. It shows rigorously that this idea does not work. Of course, the neoplatonician udesrood this since long, but without the Church thesis, their argument (mainly the dream argument) is not constructive, and does not provide the means of verification. > > I just made the contradiction explicit by pointing out that any proposition > that can be proven, cannot be ambiguous or nonsensical and hence can be > unambiguously assumed. The expression “assuming arithmetic” is unclear. With mechanism (which is an heavy assumption) we isolate by meta-reasoning a theory of everything which has very few assumptions: just 0 + 0 = 0, 1 + 0 = 1, etc. That is quite different than assuming that arithmetic is consistent, or make sense, etc. There is a subtlety here, no doubt. As we assume as much math as we needed at the meta-level, and for the internal phenomenology as well, but all this is done without assuming more than elementary arithmetic at the fundamental ontological level. Mechanism justifies such an approach. All the machine interviews in the context of RA, believes far more proposition than RA. Arithmetic explains why numbers believe (even “richly”) in much more than arithmetic, indeed, they believe in most of the objects that they are dreaming… 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/86b8bfb7-e637-1d3e-d9a4-0968a640972e%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/729A0668-730A-447A-8F4C-6E3EB88384C9%40ulb.ac.be.
