> On 9 Mar 2021, at 20:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 3/9/2021 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s> >>> >>> John K Clark >> >> >> My comment there: >> >> << >> Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of >> elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal >> machine can know which computations support it, and indeed that if the >> machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution >> level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". >> The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of >> machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the >> 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware >> that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory >> of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that >> we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately >> not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate >> this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science. >> >> >> >> We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence >> that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that >> we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but >> arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and >> digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical >> science). >> >> > > Whatever explains every possibility, fails to explain anything at all.
That is how Deustch refuted Schmidhuber, perhaps, but it does not refute mechanism and its consequences, and indeed, the theory explains what we observe, and discard what we don’t observe, and this not just for the observable but also the sensible, the justifiable, etc. You might critique all theories of everything, as they explain everything, but that is interesting only if we can make prediction, both positive and negative, like physical laws. But with mechanism we have an explanation of where the physical laws come from, and why they give rise to sharable quanta, and non sharable qualia. Physics fails. Not only it has not yet any unique theory of the universe, but two contradicting theories, but it does not address at all the question of consciousness, for good reason: it fails on this. It uses an identity thesis incompatible with Mechanism, used already in Darwin and in Molecular Biology. That is why strict materialist believer come up with the idea that consciousness is an illusion (but that is non-sensical), or just eliminate persons and consciousness altogether, which is not really satisfying… 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/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%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/D85A8911-5DBA-4295-89DD-95D42853FC82%40ulb.ac.be.
