> On 19 Jul 2019, at 12:18, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > ... > You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using > matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter > is the dream of computations, and not the other way around. Whatever we are, > it seems clear that we are bound to perceive reality as made of matter, but > it doesn't follow that matter is the ultimate reality. This is just Plato's > Cave with modern language. > > Telmo. > > > > I've been perplexed for 50 years how the idea of immaterialism (that there is > something other than matter) came to be.
That is “immaterialism” in the sense of the dualist philosophers of mind. I use the term materialism in the sense of weak materialism: the belief in irreducible matter, i.e. the belief that we have to assume matter (that we cannot explain it without assuming it). Weak Materialism has been introduced in science by Aristotle, and taken for granted since, but Plato was the one who show skepticism toward it. > > The so-called abstractions - like the definition of the Turing machine you > read in a textbook - are just fictions. But fictions can be useful. Maybe > there should be a better word for useful fictions. Math is as good as any, > for part of that anyway. > > The old guys, Thales, Democritus, Epicurus, were curious about matter. Where > did this bizarre trend towards immaterialism come from? Plato, who was inspired by Pythagorus, although he cites him only once. That tendency will be fought by Aristotle, and came back with Middle-Platonism (also called Neopythagoreanism) and then with the Neoplatonist (Plotinus). > > The original sin of philosophy occurred when mathematical and mental (and > computational) entities were abstracted away from their material home. Assuming that such thing exist. No problem, my point is only that it contradicts Digital Mechanism. Well, I argue also that thanks to the quantum mechanics without reduction (Everett) the experimental evidences favours much more Mechanism and its immaterialism (in the strong sense of NON-weak-materialislm!). The many-histories view of QM is already a subset of the many-histories which exist in arithmetic. The question is only to see if there are not too much histories, and why the statistics admit the “destructive interference” so that the measure can make sense, and this has been explained through the translation of the definition of matter by Platinus in arithmetic, which gives directly quantum logic. Bruno > > @pphilipthrift > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73aba2da-319b-4a90-b178-4e9340ce4d31%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73aba2da-319b-4a90-b178-4e9340ce4d31%40googlegroups.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4C2806D3-E700-4788-A392-B2C109E1AFEE%40ulb.ac.be.
