On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:48 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2019, at 12:45, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:18 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can >> not access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we >> can personally observe. >> > > That is not scientific realism -- that is metaphysical mysticism. > > > Hmm… You *can* say that, but then you need to assess that your invocation > of physical brain is such metaphysical mysticism. The point is that this > version of metaphysical mysticism is incompatible with the mechanist > assumption. > It is not a metaphysical to believe in the existence of a physical brain underlying our conscious minds -- it is the result of solid scientific evidence. If it is incompatible with the mechanist assumption, then that is because the mechanist assumption is useless rubbish. Evolution has precisely nothing to do with it. The preferred basis is > determined by quantum Darwinism > > > You can’t invoke quantum mechanics when using Mechanism, unless you > explain why the quantum formalism emerges from the statistics on all > computations (realised in arithmetic) seen from inside (a notion handled by > the self-referential logic, but some thought experience can give the main > ideas without delving too much in the provability logics). > I can invoke quantum mechanics when doing physics. The trouble with your rubric "the quantum formalism emerges from the statistics on all computations seen from the inside..." is that is precisely meaningless. You have never given any indication of what "The statistics on all computations" might mean. How do you select "all computations", and what "statistics" do you use on them? And what might that give you, if anything? Your grand promises have never actually delivered anything, Bruno. You seem to think that you can lay down the law about quantum mechanics, but you have no idea how to get even the Schroedinger equation from your "statistics over computations". Until you can actually produce something that even vaguely approaches an account of the physical world we see around us, you can be safely ignored. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLQgbcYxNGKzqc0BV_C%3Dn_TDUzfnLPf0%2B2Qb4J0y6S5h8g%40mail.gmail.com.
