On 2/14/2012 11:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
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.
How many times do we have to tell you that's not true?
Hi Joseph,
Please be specific. What is "not true" about the sentence I wrote above? In SANE04,
pg. 10-11, I read:
" 8) Yes, but what if we don't grant a concrete robust physical universe? Up
to this
stage, w_e can still escape the conclusion of the seven preceding reasoning
steps, by
postulating that a ''physical universe'' really ''exists'' and is too little in the
sense of not being
able to generate the entire UD*, nor any reasonable portions of it, so that our
usual physical
predictions would be safe from any interference with its UD-generated ''little''
computational
histories. Such a move can be considered as being ad hoc and disgraceful. _It
can also be
quite weakened by some acceptation of some conceptual version of Ockham's
Razor, and
obviously that move is without purpose for those who are willing to accept
comp+ (in which
case the UDA just show the necessity of the detour in psychology, and the general
shape of
physics as averages on consistent 1-histories). But logically, there is still a
place for both
physicalism and comp, once we made that move. Actually the 8th present step will
explain
that such a move is nevertheless without purpose._This will make the notion of
concrete and
existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power._ _It will follow
that a much
weaker and usual form of Ockham's razor can be used to conclude that not only
physics has
been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that ''matter''
has been
ontologically reduced to ''mind'' where mind is defined as the object study of
fundamental
machine psychology. _All that by assuming comp, I insist. The reason is that comp
forbids to
associate inner experiences with the physical processing related to the
computations
corresponding (with comp) to those experiences. The physical ''supervenience
thesis'' of the
materialist philosophers of mind cannot be maintained, and inner experiences can
only be
associated with type of computation.
Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a machine state]
at space-time
(x,t), we are obliged to associate [the pain I feel at space-time (x,t)] to a
type or a sheaf of
computations (existing forever in the arithmetical Platonia which is accepted
as existing
independently of our selves with arithmetical realism)."
If this is not a statement that "the physical world does not exist" and, instead,
that all that exists is "abstract machine", I will eat my hat.
I have repeatedly tried to see if the reasoning of Bruno et al allows for us to
decouple the existence of an entity from its properties but I have been repeatedly
rebuffed for such a thought, therefore the elimination of the properties of the physical
world demands the elimination of the "existence" of the physical world.
My understanding is that the properties of the physical world are inferred from our
subjective experiences that have a consistency (which Vic Stenger calls
point-of-view-invariance) which allows us to model them as being "out there", i.e.
objective. Bruno's theory is that this subset of subjective experiences is generated by
all possible computations. Hence the material world model is derivative from computation
and is not primitive or fundamental. This however may suffer from a white-rabbit problem
since it seems likely that many sets of subjective experiences will correspond to models
of Alice-in-wonderland worlds.
Incidentally, I think that human-like consciousness can only exist within the context of a
physical world model. So the physical world is not optional, even if it isn't fundamental.
Brent
My claim is that we can recover appearances by decoupling existence from property
definiteness, but that idea is either not being understood or is being rejected out of hand.
Onward!
Stephen
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4809 - Release Date: 02/14/12
--
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.
--
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.
