An old warning and piece of advice is in order. Never try to teach a pig to sing. If you do you get covered in mud and you just really piss off a pig.
LC On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 7:51:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Apr 2021, at 04:36, spudboy100 via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Have you considered that you are limiting the capability of the cosmos to > change and adapt? > > > … change and adapt to what? With Mechanism, we cannot invoke our personal > ontological commitment, especially when doing Metaphysics. > > No, I agree that there is an apparent cosmos, a persistent illusion, and > it might or not be seen as adapting itself to the reality of the number > relations. It has not much choice in this “matter”. > > > > > It may have a feature that may have fooled Turing, until Turing caught on, > because given enough time and health, Turing is adaptable too? > > > To be sure Turing was a naturalist. He missed the contradiction with > (weak) materialism. But if you meant the Church-Turing thesis; I tend to > think that this is a very serious thesis. I would need some solid argument > to tell it refuted. Then, Mechanism itself is my working hypothesis, > although I can argue that there are many evidence, and none for > materialism, like the greek already understood less formally. > > Bruno > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 6:16 am > Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns > (not released on April 1st) > > > On 12 Apr 2021, at 04:44, spudboy100 via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > How about this article and embedded paper, from some physicists employed > by Microsoft? > > > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k > > > Basically, that the cosmos is really a self-learning computer is a > conclusion that suggests that laws are hard to pin down because the > "Operating System," (Blessed, be He-She-It-Them) is always coming up with > new understandings? > > > > The physical universe cannot be a computer, because that implies > Mechanism, but Mechanism makes the physical universe into a non computable > statistics on all (relative) computations, which cannot be emulated by any > computer. > > If “I” am a machine, Reality is not Turing emulable, and the physical > reality too. We already know that the arithmetical reality is not Turing > emulable. > > In fact, the physical universe cannot be an ontological reality. It is not > a thing, but a first person plural experience. (Assuming Descartes + > Turing…). > > 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e53d20bb-ed2f-481f-b7a6-c3b1d69d8768n%40googlegroups.com.
