Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can onlyalter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and will not change at our command.
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba2e528b-4387-fcb6-9487-a2ac8ad641d6%40verizon.net.
We use mathematics because we are living in a mathematical reality. Note that the phenomenology is not entirely mathematical though, but psychological or theological.
On 7 Dec 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/7/2019 1:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can onlyalter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and will not change at our command.
It is generally overlooked that the above is not strictly true. Physics has often moved phenomena from the category of "explained by science" to "accident of nature" and sometimes back. For example Kepler thought the number of planets should be a consequence of natural law. Newton dropped this from his theory. The shape of continents was considered a geological accident...until Wegner showed they came from the breakup of a single continent. The world may not change, but the part we take to be "law like" and the part we consider "accident of nature" are flexible.
It is here that mechanism is at its best, as it delineates completely what is geographical/contingent, and what is necessary, for physics, for all universal machine (or all but finitely many exceptions of measure null).
And of course, mechanism explain easily what physics obey to math, as the physical appearances proceed from a mathematical phenomenon occurring in the arithmetical reality. We use mathematics because we are living in a mathematical reality.
Note that the phenomenology is not entirely mathematical though, but psychological or theological.
Maudlin is a materialist, but at least he got right the deep incompatibility of physicalism with digital Mechanism (in its Olympia paper, published in 1989, I publish this in 1988, btw).
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba2e528b-4387-fcb6-9487-a2ac8ad641d6%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BBC12F4A-700C-4C1B-865B-0F6AC3EC0CC6%40ulb.ac.be.
On 8 Dec 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/8/2019 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 7 Dec 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/7/2019 1:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can onlyalter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and will not change at our command.
It is generally overlooked that the above is not strictly true. Physics has often moved phenomena from the category of "explained by science" to "accident of nature" and sometimes back. For example Kepler thought the number of planets should be a consequence of natural law. Newton dropped this from his theory. The shape of continents was considered a geological accident...until Wegner showed they came from the breakup of a single continent. The world may not change, but the part we take to be "law like" and the part we consider "accident of nature" are flexible.
It is here that mechanism is at its best, as it delineates completely what is geographical/contingent, and what is necessary, for physics, for all universal machine (or all but finitely many exceptions of measure null).
And of course, mechanism explain easily what physics obey to math, as the physical appearances proceed from a mathematical phenomenon occurring in the arithmetical reality. We use mathematics because we are living in a mathematical reality.
Sadly it explains easily as theologians usually do..."God did it." is an easy explanation for everything...assuming a God reality.
That's why scientists are impressed by predictions, but not so much by explanations.
Brent
Note that the phenomenology is not entirely mathematical though, but psychological or theological.
Maudlin is a materialist, but at least he got right the deep incompatibility of physicalism with digital Mechanism (in its Olympia paper, published in 1989, I publish this in 1988, btw).
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba2e528b-4387-fcb6-9487-a2ac8ad641d6%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BBC12F4A-700C-4C1B-865B-0F6AC3EC0CC6%40ulb.ac.be.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d23301ce-380e-e672-fa84-23a83eca9ae4%40verizon.net.
On 8 Dec 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/8/2019 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 7 Dec 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/7/2019 1:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can onlyalter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and will not change at our command.
It is generally overlooked that the above is not strictly true. Physics has often moved phenomena from the category of "explained by science" to "accident of nature" and sometimes back. For example Kepler thought the number of planets should be a consequence of natural law. Newton dropped this from his theory. The shape of continents was considered a geological accident...until Wegner showed they came from the breakup of a single continent. The world may not change, but the part we take to be "law like" and the part we consider "accident of nature" are flexible.
It is here that mechanism is at its best, as it delineates completely what is geographical/contingent, and what is necessary, for physics, for all universal machine (or all but finitely many exceptions of measure null).
And of course, mechanism explain easily what physics obey to math, as the physical appearances proceed from a mathematical phenomenon occurring in the arithmetical reality. We use mathematics because we are living in a mathematical reality.
Sadly it explains easily as theologians usually do..."God did it." is an easy explanation for everything...assuming a God reality.
That is exactly my point, with “matter” instead of God. The physicalist say “matter selects the ‘conscious’ computation”, but they fail to give any rôle to that matter in the consciousness selection.
Either that selection process is Turing emulable, but then we are led to the mechanist formulation of the mind-body problem, or that selection process is not Turing emulable. In that case, either it is recoverable from the First Person Indeterminacy in arithmetic, in which case we are closer to the mechanist explanation of the origin of the physical laws, or it does not, and that is what we can tested.
That's why scientists are impressed by predictions, but not so much by explanations.
An explanation without a prediction is a waste of time. We agree on this. But my whole point is that Mechanism vs Materialism is testable, and that the facts confirms Mechanism, and refute Materialism (as guessed by many theologian at the time this was done by scientists, indeed).
Bruno
Brent
Note that the phenomenology is not entirely mathematical though, but psychological or theological.
Maudlin is a materialist, but at least he got right the deep incompatibility of physicalism with digital Mechanism (in its Olympia paper, published in 1989, I publish this in 1988, btw).
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ba2e528b-4387-fcb6-9487-a2ac8ad641d6%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BBC12F4A-700C-4C1B-865B-0F6AC3EC0CC6%40ulb.ac.be.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d23301ce-380e-e672-fa84-23a83eca9ae4%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33064551-2EF6-48E2-A978-07F2FD8EBFAD%40ulb.ac.be.
Materialists say consciousness is process, and as such is realized in matter, but is not itself matter. This is well supported by empirical observations of everything from drunkenness to brain surgery.
Brent
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:Materialists say consciousness is process, and as such is realized in matter, but is not itself matter. This is well supported by empirical observations of everything from drunkenness to brain surgery.
Brent
No materialist would say there are processes and matter and that processes are not matter.
If they did, they would be a kind of dualist, not a materialist.
@philipthrift
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bc27a2ac-652f-47e3-a600-03f9df22a636%40googlegroups.com.
On 12/10/2019 3:06 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:Materialists say consciousness is process, and as such is realized in matter, but is not itself matter. This is well supported by empirical observations of everything from drunkenness to brain surgery.
Brent
No materialist would say there are processes and matter and that processes are not matter.
Sure they would. Just as JKC said race cars are fast but being fast isn't a race car, it's a process.
Brent
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 7:27:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 12/10/2019 5:13 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:05:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 12/10/2019 3:06 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:Materialists say consciousness is process, and as such is realized in matter, but is not itself matter. This is well supported by empirical observations of everything from drunkenness to brain surgery.
Brent
No materialist would say there are processes and matter and that processes are not matter.
Sure they would. Just as JKC said race cars are fast but being fast isn't a race car, it's a process.
Brent
A fast car is still a car. Fast matter is still matter. A conscious brain is still a brain.
A parked (not moving at all) car is still a car, too. A parked car is no more or less of a car than a fast car. (What process is occurring with a parked car? Is 'stationary' a process?)
'fast', 'conscious', 'parked', 'stationary' have no existence of their own.
Are they matter? No. Do they exist? Yes.
Brent
Show me where fast exists. What are its spacetime coordinates?
Nominalism is the doctrine that abstract concepts, general terms or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names. Therefore, various objects labeled by the same term have nothing in common but their name. Put another way, only actual physical particulars are real, and universals exist only subsequent to particular things, being just verbal abstractions.
Nominalism arose in reaction to the problem of universals and in particular to Plato's solution to it, known as Platonic Realism, which holds that abstract objects like universals and Forms exist in their own right and are wholly independent of the physical world, and that particular physical objects merely exemplify or instantiate the universal. Nominalists ask exactly where this universal realm might be, and find it unusual and unlikely that there could be a single thing that exists in multiple places simultaneously.
@philipthrift
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/529889b6-ed27-4a9d-b96f-3a0992409656%40googlegroups.com.
On 12/10/2019 5:37 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 7:27:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 12/10/2019 5:13 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:05:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 12/10/2019 3:06 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:39:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:Materialists say consciousness is process, and as such is realized in matter, but is not itself matter. This is well supported by empirical observations of everything from drunkenness to brain surgery.
Brent
No materialist would say there are processes and matter and that processes are not matter.
Sure they would. Just as JKC said race cars are fast but being fast isn't a race car, it's a process.
Brent
A fast car is still a car. Fast matter is still matter. A conscious brain is still a brain.
A parked (not moving at all) car is still a car, too. A parked car is no more or less of a car than a fast car. (What process is occurring with a parked car? Is 'stationary' a process?)
'fast', 'conscious', 'parked', 'stationary' have no existence of their own.
Are they matter? No. Do they exist? Yes.
Brent
Show me where fast exists. What are its spacetime coordinates?
It's an attribute not a thing. So it exists where things have space coordinates changing relative to time coordinates (as you well know).
And I don't need lecture on nominalism.
Brent
On 10 Dec 2019, at 21:39, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2019 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 8 Dec 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/8/2019 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 7 Dec 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 12/7/2019 1:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Physicists seeking such a mesh between mathematics and physics can onlyalter one side of the equation. The physical world is as it is, and will not change at our command.
It is generally overlooked that the above is not strictly true. Physics has often moved phenomena from the category of "explained by science" to "accident of nature" and sometimes back. For example Kepler thought the number of planets should be a consequence of natural law. Newton dropped this from his theory. The shape of continents was considered a geological accident...until Wegner showed they came from the breakup of a single continent. The world may not change, but the part we take to be "law like" and the part we consider "accident of nature" are flexible.
It is here that mechanism is at its best, as it delineates completely what is geographical/contingent, and what is necessary, for physics, for all universal machine (or all but finitely many exceptions of measure null).
And of course, mechanism explain easily what physics obey to math, as the physical appearances proceed from a mathematical phenomenon occurring in the arithmetical reality. We use mathematics because we are living in a mathematical reality.
Sadly it explains easily as theologians usually do..."God did it." is an easy explanation for everything...assuming a God reality.
That is exactly my point, with “matter” instead of God. The physicalist say “matter selects the ‘conscious’ computation”, but they fail to give any rôle to that matter in the consciousness selection.
These physicalists you are always refuting are strawmen. No scientist or philosopher I've read says, “matter selects the ‘conscious’ computation”.
Materialists say consciousness is process, and as such is realized in matter, but is not itself matter.
This is well supported by empirical observations of everything from drunkeness to brain surgery.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24886681-544b-da5a-4a0c-1970c27d1999%40verizon.net.
The empirical evidences supports Mechanism. I don’t see any evidences for physicalism. It fails on the mind, or identify 1p and 3p, or make everything conscious, without any real theory, unlike mechanism, whose theory is computer science, arithmetic, intensional arithmetic, mathematical logic, even Artificial Intelligence, as this domain will be more and more experimental, in all directions.The claim that there exist a fundamental-ontological-primary universe only add insuperable complexity to the Mechanist approach and formulation of the mind body problem.You are right, the physicalist does not even realise that they use Matter in the same invalid way that some pseudo-religious person invoke God in a metaphysical explanation. The reason is that they take the primitive existence of the physical for granted, and that is not valid when we adopt the scientific attitude in this domain. I am aware that the bad habit lasts for more than 1500 years. A chance I am patient.Note for John Clark: I will (try) to answer your post tomorrow.Bruno
@philipthrift
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ff72fd8-e20a-49fa-9dac-0dd6ff8e0518%40googlegroups.com.