> On 20 Jun 2019, at 18:30, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:19 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> 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. > > Each of us has access to a piece of knowledge that can't be communicated, but > that doesn't make it untrue. I have a hunch you are conscious, if my hunch is > correct then you know for a fact that mechanism, as you have defined it, is > true because you've ALREADY survived many brain transplant operations.
That is a strong evidence, and can be enough to believe that it is true in practice, and to say “yes” to the doctor. But that is not an argument for saying that the metaphysical science has proven mechanism to be true. CT might be refuted tomorrow, or in ten thousand years. And the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog, continuous process. I dont’ believe this, to be sure. But I have to take into account that we cannot logically reject non-mechanism. The ethic of Mechanism will be that you have the right to say “no” to the doctor, and that you cannot enforce the brain transplant to another. > > > A non mechanist can believe that you have become a zombie. > > Sure, he can believe anything he wants, and he can be absolutely positively > 100% certain that I an a zombie, but that doesn't mean I'm a zombie. His > belief has precisely zero effect on the nature of reality. Being absolutely > certain and also dead wrong is not even rare, just look at the 911 hijackers. No problem with this. > > > Of course, we have strong evidence for Mechanism. > > It's far more than just strong evidence, we have rock solid proof for > Mechanism as you have defined it, or at least I have. In which theory? A proof is done in a theory. What I can show is that Mechanism has to be false in any theory which commit itself in an ontology richer than RA, although I have still some doubt if we can add or not the induction axioms about the ontology. Many open problems remains, of course. > > > But if we want rigour in metaphysics, nothing should be taken for granted, > > You may not have it but I have rock solid proof that I am not a zombie, You have, I think, rock solid evidence, but no evidence at all can prove anything more than the existence of your consciousness for you. By “proof” I mean communicable proof to another. > and it's as rigorous as proofs get. If you have it, communicate it to us. I will doubt it, because once communicate, it can be communicate by some ad hoc zombie. But you can try. > It's a pity you can't access that proof too but that's the way it is. > > >>> 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, > > You mean the papers with wall to wall personal pronouns and a personal > pronoun duplicating machine but not one clear referent in sight? > > > and I have explained this here. But you need to assess your understanding > > of step 3 to proceed. > > I'd need to have brain damage to proceed from step 3. > > > I don’t think your refutation of step 3 has been understood by anyone. > > You have repeated that line many times, I suspect it's untrue but I don't > care if it is. This shows you are not interested in searching the truth. > Anybody who reads step 3 and doesn't think it's dumb is dumb. > > >> metaphysics hasn't discovered anything new in a thousand years, > > > Mathematics, physics, and mathematical logic are born from > > metaphysics/theology. > > And chemistry was born from alchemy, and alchemy hasn't discovered anything > new in a thousand years either. You seem to like religion, or at least you > give it more respect than it deserves, so I will quote from the Bible, First > Corinthians 13:11: > > "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought > as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." > > > the theology of Aristotle has [...] > > Speaking of childish things, TO HELL WITH ARISTOTLE AND TO HELL WITH THEOLOGY! You confirm that atheists are the ally of the radical christians, who persecuted the pagan theologians. In my country, many atheists have welcome my work, as they know that if we come back to reason in that field, the institutionalised charlatans will rightly feel to be threatened. But the strong, fanatical (to quote Einstein) atheists, the non-agnostic atheists, and believer in primary matter, are apparently more anxious, confirming that they remain dogmatic on this issues, and that they defend de facto the obscurantist the statu quo. > > > My opponents are typical materialist philosophers, not scientists. > > I suppose working scientists have better things to do with their time than > debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how many computer > science textbooks it takes to unscrew a lightbulb. With Mechanism, the question of how many angel you can put on a pin, is equivalent to the question of how many bits or quits can be handled in something having the size of the pin. > > >> 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. > > Huh? You just said that with Everett there is a 100% probability that I will wake up .. Oh I see, you were still describing the 3-1 view. But the probability on which both the digitalist mechanist, and the quantum mechanist talk about are the probability of the first (plural) outcome. Bruno > > > That is a progress. Let me test your theory, > > It's not my theory it's Everett's, and the only known way to test it is to > use David Deutsch's method and that needs an intelligent quantum computer > which unfortunatly we don't have yet. > > > Everyone knows that the probabilities in Everett are the same as the one by > > Copenhagen. > > If only one of the infinite number of worlds is observable then you'd expect > the two interpretations would yield identical results if you don't have > access to an advanced Quantum Computer, and we will have to wait a decade or > two (maybe less) before we can play around with one of those. > > 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/CAJPayv17dutedoAjZZj0Z6KwbdN%2BvdqXRRt50hM2qYZDoGLwrg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv17dutedoAjZZj0Z6KwbdN%2BvdqXRRt50hM2qYZDoGLwrg%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/D83D838B-1B63-48A4-866F-E34FBD7E4B10%40ulb.ac.be.
