On 01 Apr 2015, at 21:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 22:18, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:05, LizR wrote:
Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the
physical universe yet.
But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the
axioms Kxy = x + Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO
describe all feature of the physical universe. If not comp is false.
With comp, we cannot add anything to elementary arithmetic or to any
sigma-1 complete set. That is the point of the reasoning. That we
don't succeed, or have not yet extracted it is another point. The
TOE is there. All the physical (but non geographical, nor
historical) feature of physics must be explained by elementary
arithmetic, or computationalism is false. That follows from the UDA.
OK, but as you say - if comp is true. And I'm not saying you need to
prove it's true because I know that's impossible. But as far as I
know, no one has yet derived a convincing amount of physics from
comp, so we don't yet have convincing evidence that it may well be
true, if you see what I mean. (I think Bruce says the same thing in
a post i'm about to read!)
I don't think it's impossible to prove comp true. If comp were not
true then it would be possible to make partial zombies. If partial
zombies are possible then there would be no difference between you
having qualia or lacking qualia, which is equivalent to saying
consciousness does not exist; not just that it is epiphenomenal but
that it isn't there at all. So if consciousness exists, comp must be
true.
That reasoning might asses that comp or your functionalism is
provable, but comp, as I defined it, use Church-thesis (if only to get
a universal dovetailer), and this gives one way to refute comp: to
find a function that human can compute, but no computer could. It is
hard to imagine, but it is logically possible (that is why attempt to
refute CT continue to be made).
Then as I said, anosognosia might make conceivable partial zombiness,
making consciousness "non-existing", I could agree with this, but the
partial zombie might not agree in the sense that it would say: no, my
consciousness has not changed (despite some god could say, yes, the
volume of its consciousness has drop 1/2, but he can't see that as he
is amnesic of its precedent volume of consciousness. Again, this is
close to non-sense to me, and eventually I might think that (comp v
functionalism) is provable. Interesting point. I will dig on this ...
hoping to find sometime. I have to go. Note that (comp v
functionalism(yours) = functionalism(yours). It is not Putnam
functionalism (which is comp, even with some "high" level substitution
level).
You seem going to change my mind on something about comp/functionalism.
Bruno
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
