> On 17 Dec 2020, at 21:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12/16/2020 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> Am Do, 17. Dez 2020, um 03:08, schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: >>> >>> >>> On 12/16/2020 9:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> Am So, 13. Dez 2020, um 17:11, schrieb Bruno Marchal: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10 Dec 2020, at 16:14, Telmo Menezes <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mindey asked a very interesting question, and I've been thinking about >>>>>> it while following the discussion. I don't have a good answer, but I >>>>>> might have a good question. I propose another take: the discussion so >>>>>> far has been in terms of quanta, but what if we reframed it in terms of >>>>>> qualia? >>>>>> >>>>>> Imagine the "universe" in terms of the set of all first-person >>>>>> experience moments of all of its inhabitants. Is there a limit to >>>>>> novelty here? Or can qualia also display unbounded complexity? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With Mechanism, we have to separate clearly the ontology, which is given >>>>> by the minimal things that we have to assume because we cannot derive >>>>> them from simpler thing, and which has to be enough rich to support a >>>>> universal machine. There is some amount of latitude here, because we can >>>>> assume any universal machinery(*). As everyone believe already in natural >>>>> numbers and the laws of addition and multiplication, I use them (albeit >>>>> in my course I prefer to use the combinators, but once we have them we >>>>> have the numbers+laws, and vice versa. >>>> >>>> Still, don't you find it incredibly strange that such a thing exists to >>>> being with? >>> >>> You wouldn't if you thought about the evolution of mind and how it serves >>> in natural selection. Counting is very useful. Even animals do it. >>> >> >> I am aware. What I mean is that it is incredibly strange that anything >> exists at all.
Yes Telmo, that remains mysterious. Now, with the notion of universal machinery, we can explain why it is impossible to derive the existence of any universal machinery without assuming one. Then assuming any universal machinery, we can prove the existence of all the others, and of all their (conscious) doubts and tergiversations... > Brent: > If nothing existed that would be a contradiction in terms. :-) Good pun. (Of course, if no thing ever existed, there would be no term at all, not even “nothing”. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/caf70dbb-1e6f-f4ae-8cbd-6228e4c7970e%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/caf70dbb-1e6f-f4ae-8cbd-6228e4c7970e%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/02801076-4500-4332-A340-065094CDCC72%40ulb.ac.be.
