On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 8:22:12 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
> > > On 12/13/2020 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The logical explanation follows: > > > > NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL-LAWS > > > > We cannot start from consciousness, and we cannot start with matter, > > which are the notion that we have to explain from numbers, when we > > assume Mécanisme, and indeed, the universal numbers provide that > > explanation, and it is testable as it leads to number/machine physical > > laws, that we can compare with Nature. > > Why can't you start from consciousness. It's more immediately known > than numbers. Bernard Kastrup favors it . > As do many more "cognitive" approaches but Bruno's approach is arithmetical - and thus a metaphysical kind of realism. And as elegantly as it addresses consciousness, its content, the existence of platonic forms, along with our access to it- I've been wondering about one observation. Let us assume we are mathematical beings in a mathematical reality, who have access to said reality via our minds: how can my ability to play a piano piece or my technique in solving some mathematical problem that I could a few years ago, atrophy over time, if there *weren't* something - physical or otherwise - that disturbed the access to the land of arithmetical platonia? The hard drive of my computer degrades over time for physical reasons but if we allow the same kind of reasoning to apply to the functioning of platonic or computational minds, we have to admit some physical property or some "other thing in the way" that perturbs the access of mind to the realm of pure metaphysical mathematical forms, perhaps on a biological/chemical level of neurology that manifests psychologically. Thus we have a contradiction in addition to the "unnatural observation" that quanta don't appear at the []p & <>t level. The arithmetical realist would reply "but if you assume something primary and physical, you can't explain consciousness" and cite MGA, but they'd still have to account for that atrophy and similar discrepancies in learning speed/effects; e.g. why do some minds have more facility for abstraction than others, if all are essentially the same kinds of machines, with the same kind of access, to the assumed arithmetical reality? Classrooms provide evidence of a controlled environment: wouldn't our grades in mathematics be much more uniform? Many of us know this not to be the case, lol. PGC -- 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/5dbbd917-d1f5-4077-87c9-88d0d048ad02n%40googlegroups.com.
