Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Of course, like Bohm, you can assume that there are particles, and >> conspiratorial potential, but that looks like Ptolemeaus epicycles, and >> worst, they

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24/06/2016 3:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, like Bohm, you can assume that there are particles, and conspiratorial potential, but that looks like Ptolemeaus epicycles, and worst, they prevent the computationalist theory of consciousness to apply. Scientists don't do that. Only

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 24/06/2016 3:58 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: But this would include many worlds besides this one with vastly different physics. Come Brent, the total beauty of computationalism is that there is only one physics (well, actually three, but that is

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/23/2016 6:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If a GoL universe exists and contains a Turing machine executing the universal dovetailer, no conscious entities within the programs executed by the universal dovetailer could ever know their ultimate substrate happens to be a GoL universe.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as we know it >>> or it wouldn't be another physical universe as we know

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> what is clear cut is that the chain on "what caused that?" questions >> either comes to an end or it does not. > > > ​> ​ > Explanation and cause are conceptually different. > ​Not if you want an

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> you've got to give those symbols a meaning, otherwise you're ​just >> talking about squiggles. And by the way, "=" is just another squiggle. The >> way we get around this problem and the reason mathematics and

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:28, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/20/2016 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent. Then the axiom itself might be existent

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/20/2016 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist in elementary arithmetic. Which is not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 7:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: These diagrams might help give you a picture for what Bruno is talking about when he mentions Aristotelism. It relates to a question of reductionism and explaination. "Is physics the most

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as we know it or >> it wouldn't be another physical universe as we know it. ​ >> > > ​> ​ > So according to you, does every physical universe has to have

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 23 Jun 2016, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: The alternative,

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/20/2016 6:26 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: ​Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too? Valid questions. As you see the answer is not so clear cut, ​But

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 22 Jun 2016, at 23:35, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point is mathematics is a language​ ​and​ ​physics isn't, physics just is. ​> ​I give an

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/20/2016 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent. Then the axiom itself might be existent in some other theories. Now in the case of

R: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit (an old quote)

"In all cases, Knowledge implies a combination of Thoughts and Things. Without this combination, it would not be Knowledge. Without Thoughts, there could be no connexion; without Things, there could be no reality. Thoughts and Things are so intimately combined in our Knowledge, that we do not

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/20/2016 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist in elementary arithmetic. Which is not the same as to exist in the world. Indeed.

Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

On 6/22/2016 10:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/06/2016 3:14 am,