> On 21 Aug 2019, at 16:27, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 4:42:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Things are much simpler if we assume mechanism, like Everett. But Everett > stil assumes some universal wave, which, when we assume mechanism, must be > justify by the mechanist first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. > > To apply physics, “shut up and calculate” is all good, but in Metaphysics, it > is pure authoritative argument to prevent finding and testing possible > solutions of the problem. That is doubly true in the Mechanist frame, > probably because the Mechanist solution is troubling for those who are > physicalist, and believe in an ontological physical universe. > > The mechanist solution is empirically testable, so let us test it. Up to now, > Mechanism is the only theory which explains the appearance without > eliminating consciousness and its mechanist explanation (the theology G* and > its variants). > > With Mechanism, physics is not the fundamental science. Physics is reduced to > a sort of arithmetical probability/credibility machine theory. > > Bruno > > This distinction between what is physical and what is mechanistic seems > somewhat contrived. I suppose in the philosophical world this is what people > do, where now there are people into meta-metaphysics. I am not an enemy of > philosophy quite in the way Feynman was or his followers as Weinberg, but I > do think science is best with a minimum of metaphysics.
That is why I study Digital Mechanism. It makes metaphysics and theology into an experimental science. What some people often missed (and it is normal after 1500 years of materialist brainwashing) is that the hypothesis of the existence of a *primaty* physical reality (physicalism) *is* an hypothesis in metaphysics. With mechanism, that hypothesis has been shown inconsistent, and the mind)body problem is shown to be reduced in deriving the belief in the physical reality from a theory of consciousness, which is offered by the G* logic of Gödel-Löb-Solovay, so we can test it (and indeed, QM (without collapse) favours it, by far, I would argue). It is just a bad habit we have since 529 (symbolic date, closure of Plato academy) to abandon rigorous in the fundamental domain, and in the human domain (which explains Shoah, Rwanda, etc., plausibly enough). The truth is that we can keep the scientific attitude in all domains, just by adding enough interrogation mark after clear assumption, and never claim to have obtained the truth. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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/8994f00e-474d-4593-92da-a525b7814f3a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8994f00e-474d-4593-92da-a525b7814f3a%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/9798AAC7-C90A-4581-BBB8-32B38E2FE0B7%40ulb.ac.be.
