> On 10 Mar 2021, at 03:00, spudboy100 via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well Bruno, for me, even a more profound concept is from astrophysics
Astrophysics is very interesting, but it cannot be deep if we assume Descartes-Darwin-Turing, in the sense that the laws of physics emerge from arithmetic, when assuming Mechanism. > and not from Platonic/Computational physics. That being, if we ride the back > of cosmic inflation, if it is indeed fact, then what is lost beyond our > optical event horizon? Let us presume that the cosmos expanded since the Bang > at a rate of 6 times faster than light, so what information is undetectable > beyond this light cone? (a tip o' the hat to Minkowski!). We are not > referring to a cyclic cosmos Atticus Greek style, nor Turok-Penrose style, > but simply within earlier renditions of this universe. Just hot plasma? > Middle Earth? A grand Platonic computer performing a power-on and self test? A universal machinery is all you need, and all theories in physics assumes much more than that. I don’t assume a physical universe, and I give the reason why: that theory is not part of physics, and in metaphysics it requires some very strong non-mechanist theory of mind, and that is far too much speculative for me. There are simply no evidence at all that there is a physical universe “out there”, and that assumption is what makes consciousness apparently intractable, if not eliminated. The many evidences that there is a physical reality should not be confused with some evidence that the physical reality would be the fundamental (ontologically) reality. The arithmetical explanation is much more simple, and get quanta and qualia, where physicalism (not physics) need a theory of mind which does not yet exist. Penrose made a good try, but does not use it to even address the mind-body problem, so it is hardly convincing. At least he is aware that his theory of mind has to be a non)computationalist theory of mind, which is coherent, at least.. Bruno > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 8:29 am > Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why > > >> 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). > > Bruno > > > > >> >> >> -- >> 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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com?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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6A05E8FE-62FF-4614-9564-FB75CDC38502%40ulb.ac.be > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6A05E8FE-62FF-4614-9564-FB75CDC38502%40ulb.ac.be?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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/299206009.1004530.1615341636042%40mail.yahoo.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/299206009.1004530.1615341636042%40mail.yahoo.com?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/C9E32909-BEE7-46BE-82F5-C4E6734B5975%40ulb.ac.be.
