> On 8 Oct 2019, at 20:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/8/2019 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven >> about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical >> reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your >> problem is that you take the notion of “world” too much seriously. > > You tend to think only what is fundamental should be taken "seriously”.
Why do you say that?. The physical reality is not primitive, yet remain the base for confirming or refuting theology, which is indeed the fundamental science (and by theology I mean the mathematics of G* and its intensional variants). No, I search only a theory coherent with mechanism. Physics as usually conceive is not. Physics fits with the (conscious) observation by using an brai-mind identity thesis which is violated by mechanism. > But my view is that science's job is to understand the world we experience Absolutely. > and in general this may be quite different from the ontology of some theory > explaining it. Yes. Physics is the best science to make precise prediction, but it still require a non mechanist theory of mind. With mechanism, we have “just” to extract physics from all computations, so that the physical-empirical predictions corresponds to the arithmetical-physical-prdeictions of the entities emulated (in infinitely many occurrences) in arithmetic. > So from my standpoint the problem is explaining "worlds" and given current > physical theories that implies connecting quantum mechanics to experience. If > we accept that experience is brain process and is therefore (c.f. Tegmark) > classical this just means connecting QM to the classical. So what is the QM > representation of a classical "world". In CI it's just a projection onto > some result subspace, where the subspace is already a classical world. So CI > just assumes there's an answer. In Everett's QM that "world" needs an > explanation/definition/construction. That go in the right Mechanist direction, starting from empiry. That happens already, for theoretical reason, with Digital Mechanism in cognitive science. 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/317b62a5-8f69-bc60-11c6-f76d52b5ae56%40verizon.net. -- 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/038DD7C1-5CF1-430D-8C9D-36605E35E95C%40ulb.ac.be.
