> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take >>>> into account all what is relevant. >>> But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.?? >> Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or >> else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists >> physically, that doctors exist, etc. >> >> It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and >> eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never >> doubted) is not primary. >> >> >> >> >>> By definition God is omnipotent.?? >> By *some* definition. >> >> >>> But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being. >> On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience >> are two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation. >> >> I am not sure what was your point here Brent? > > You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all what > is relevant." My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is lower > bound on the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all clear > that there is a substitution level that takes into account all that is > relevant. Simply saying there is a definition of the term doesn't mean it > refers.
Yes, so Mechanism might implied that we (as abstract immaterial computational object) are above the Holevo bound. Simply. But now, this is incorrect. Even if we need to go below that bound, like if we have a quantum brain, there is still a possibility that we don’t use the continuous information related to it, so we will still be “reconstituted” in the arithmetical reality, and the reversal physics/psychology-theology still occurs. Mechanism would be false, if not only we are quantum machine, but some infinite information is relevant, and if that infinite information is not recoverable by the first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. In that case mechanism is false, and materialism is against consistent (but not yet necessarily true, note). Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
