On 11 June 2015 at 13:03, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 6/10/2015 4:55 PM, LizR wrote: > > I suspect that "physics is not computable" is the *end* result of > Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a *reductio* on the > notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that > assumption leads to the result that it isn't. > > > But I don't see that it leads to that result. His argument of step 7 and > the MGA purport to reach a *reductio* from comp1. Those arguments are > still assuming that thought is a computation. But it is only after he > introduces the idea of all possible computations and the UD that he then > asserts that consciousness (and physics) is not computable but is rather > some kind of statistic mechanics of computational threads. >
That's a separate point. I was only explaining why Bruno says that physics isn't computable (or trying to, at least). So when Bruno comes on line you should ask him at which point in the argument the "reversal" is supposed to occur. -- 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.
