> On 19 Jun 2019, at 19:10, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:11 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> You are the one invoking it to say that some computations are real, and >> >>> other are not. > >>And I gave a specific example of what I meant long ago, > > >I debunked it. > > You debunked it in the same way the Flat Earth Society debunked the idea the > Earth is round. > > > With mechanism, > > And you said mechanism means the belief that "we can survive a digital brain > transplant operation"; so if there is anything in the universe that deserves > to be called "certain" it is that because we've already had a brain > transplant operation, many of them, and we've survived, or at least I have.
Yes, but not in a provable communicable way. A non mechanist can believe that you have become a zombie. Of course, we have strong evidence for Mechanism. That is why Diderot called it simply rationalism. But if we want rigour in metaphysics, nothing should be taken for granted, and we must delineate clearly what we assume, and what we prove, and the interpretations, etc. > > > if there is a *primitive physical reality* things would be like if 0 = 1. > > I've asked you many times to explain how you reached that conclusion but > you've never been able to, so I won't ask again. It is proven in all may papers, and I have explained this here. But you need to assess your understanding of step 3 to proceed. I don’t think your refutation of step 3 has been understood by anyone. If someone else want to argue that there is no indeterminacy in the self duplication experience, he is welcome. > > >You confuse mathematical object and their syntactical description. > > You confuse the fact that there is an important fundamental difference > between describing what Winston Churchill looked like and describing what > Harry Potter looked like. > > >> You said Mechanism is the belief that "we can survive a digital brain > >> transplant operation ", but there is no assumption involved in that, we > >> know with as much certainty as we know anything that we can survive that > >> because we already have, as I said 3 posts ago: " I know for a fact I > >> have survived from the day I was born to today, and every day since I was > >> born I have been undergoing a brain transplant operation, atoms are > >> constantly shifting out of my brain and new atoms shifting in to replace > >> them. My brain is made out of last year's mashed potatoes.” > > > That OK FAPP. > > I doubt we will ever become so wise that we understand how the world works > for all practical purposes, but if we ever do reach such a glorious point > that would be good enough for me. > > > But when we do metaphysics seriously, [...] > > That is not a serious field of study, There is no such thing as a “serious filed of study”. There are only people doing sole studies with a scientific attitude. To condemn an entire filed as not serious is not serious. > metaphysics hasn't discovered anything new in a thousand years, Mathematics, physics, and mathematical logic are born from metaphysics/theology. Then the theology of Aristotle has been imposed by violence and terror, and it led to the confusion between matter and primary matter. Yes, metaphysics has not progressed since 1500 years, but it is because you get into problem if you dare to be skeptical on some dogma.This has given the right to abandon rigour in quasi all the fundamental and “human” field. My opponents are typical materialist philosophers, not scientists. > they just keep going over the same ground asking questions that have answers > that make no sense because the questions themselves make no sense. > > >> And besides, if Everett's Many World's is true then some version of you > >> definitely will wake up in the dungeon of some sadistic individual > >> regardless of if you're frozen or not. > > > Yes, but we have partial control, and change the probabilities. > > If Everett is right there is a 100% probability a version of you will wake up > tomorrow in the torture dungeon of a sadist and a 100% probability a version > of you will not. Wonderful! You just lifted your step three critics on Everett. That is a progress. Let me test your theory, … wrong, experimentally, and of course wrong in Everett too. Everyone knows that the probabilities in Everett are the same as the one by Copenhagen. Indeed, it was a common critics against Everett: no new predictions. Bruno > > But if Everett is right why do I bother to get frozen at all? Because > although Many Worlds is my favorite quantum interpretation I wouldn't bet my > life on it. > > > That is reasonable. > > I thought so too. > > John K Clark > > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3DXFa5KLHej_ytDB_7Mqq%2B_TvnZeHqCxrSpb%2B%2BUWtu6Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3DXFa5KLHej_ytDB_7Mqq%2B_TvnZeHqCxrSpb%2B%2BUWtu6Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BA2F5E5D-A82E-49B4-8C3D-6D1B72EB153B%40ulb.ac.be.
