On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
<whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg
<whats...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my
position. I
>> > have
>> > never once said that existence is contingent upon human
consciousness. I
>> > state again and again that it is experience itself - the
capacity for
>> > sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all
possible
>> > forms of
>> > 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an
experience,
>> > otherwise
>> > there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.
>>
>> However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for
time or
>> consciousness or experience.
>
>
> Then in what sense does it 'exist'?
It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard
I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just
ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only
partially mechanistic.
Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be
only partially mechanistic.
You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be
a part of reality.
I think that you are confusing total computable with partial
computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her
behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much
more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than
anything like an answer.
The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only
interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience
with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be
other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in
them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest
in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years.
Mechanism is not a "part of something". It is a proposition about the
possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. Then
we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics
"evolved"---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the
hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning.
They can overlap, but are different things.
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ
.
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
