> On 2 Mar 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/2018 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> But you're now confounding provable and true and using "existence" in the >>> sense of satisfying axioms as though it mean the same as in common >>> discourse. >> >> >> The UD exist and is emulated in the same sense that the prime numbers are >> distributed in some ways. >> >> I am just clear. In the ontology only 0, s(0), …. exists. It is the whole >> point that when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some digital >> transformation, you would need to reify matter and attribute it some magical >> (Non Turing emulable, nor FPI-recoverable) property to make some >> computations more real than other, > > Sometimes I wonder if you know how science works. It doesn't make > assumptions that contradict observations,
I did not, or you might elaborate. > it makes observations and tries form theories that match. Yes. And physics can perhaps do that someday, and then mechanism is refuted. But up to now, the observation fits with mechanism and its immaterialism. > It is a simple trivial observation that some computations are more real than > others. That is called “solipsism”. It is not an observation, it is a principle psychology/metaphysics. > That observation doesn't require reifying matter or assuming anything > magical. It's an observation. The observation is physical, not metaphysical. For metaphysics we can only derive indirect consequences and test them. That has been done enough to say that mechanism fits with the observation, and materialism does not. > >> where in fact on the the self-referentially correct measure can be obtained >> by mathematical means, and then we can compare with Nature. >> >> Up to now, Arithmetic + its internal physical/material phenomenologies fits >> the facts, > > Like all computations exist? I think not. Then you need to abandon the Mechanist hypothesis, actually even just the Church-Turing thesis, and so, to abandon your belief in elementary arithmetic theorems, like Euclid’s one. Just to save physicalism? It actually has never worked even for the physical predictions, as re-explained shortly in the preceding post. Bruno > > Brent > >> where physics still dismiss the first person (despite the tremendous >> progress made by Galileo, Einstein and Everett, or people like Boscovic or >> Rossler). >> > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
