On 2/14/2012 7:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
<mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net
<mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping
his hand
that it implicitly requires a computation to be performed to "find" it.
Because UDA+MGA shows that even if a "real" primary physical universe
exists,
it cannot explain anything related to what I can feel to observe from
my 1p view.
Obviously, the appearance of a universe makes it natural to believe
that a
simple explanation is that such a universe exists, but this has been
shown to
not work at all, once we assume we are Turing emulable. So f you are
right,
then there must be flaw in UDA+MGA, but each time we ask you to point
where it
is, you come up with philosophical reason to discard comp (without
always
saying it).
Hi Bruno,
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the
existence of the
very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
that it
cannot exist. How? By supposedly proving that the physical world does
not exist.
It does not prove that the physical world does not exist... it proves that a
*primitive* material world is irrelevant to predict your next moment, the
current
physics of the world. Whether there is a primitive material world or not
cannot
change your expectation of your next moment, rendering this primitive
material world
devoid of explanatory power.
Quentin,
This reminds me of the GHZM quantum experiment which seems to suggest that a
pre-existing reality does not exist at least according to Lubos Motl. Is that anything
like what you mean?
Richard
It's not really that a primitive physical world would be devoid of explanatory power.
After all it is the implicit working assumption of almost all scientists. What it
primitively explains is that some things exist (are primitive and physical) and other
things don't. On this list, the working hypothesis is that 'everything' (in some sense)
exists and so there is no explantory function for primitive physics. The fact that it
seems impossible to explain qualia in terms of physics also argues against taking physics
as primitive.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
