RE: [External] Re: [SBoC-F] Assorted Speculations

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Cathy,
This is a very poor excuse for belief in your results. Physics/science has been marching ahead using mathematics when possible, without worrying about Russell paradox. If neuroscientists can show that they can explain 99 % of consciousness effects by physics, that will be a great day. That is how science is done. We can leave that 1 % for future!!! If scientists had your attitude, science would not have advanced at all!!!
Best
kashyap

-----Original Message-----
From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Cathy Reason
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [SBoC-F] Assorted Speculations

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V"
To: <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <sboc-...@googlegroups.com>


<<I have described as clearly as possible my counter example. This statement " What the theorem shows is that consciousness can have effects on the physical world which cannot be described by any physical theory." Is wrong.>>


No, Kashyap, it is not wrong, and in repeatedly claiming this you are showing your ignorance of the relevant mathematics. Let us postulate the set X of all conscious effects on the physical world which have a physical explanation. What the no-supervenience theorem shows is that there are conscious effects on the physical world which are not members of X regardless of whether or not X is the empty set. You are attempting to claim that if X is non-empty, then there can be no conscious effects on the physical world which are not members of X.
That is not a valid inference, and it is a basic error in set theory to claim that it is. If you can't see that, then you really need to revisit a high-school textbook on set theory.

What the proof shows is that the relationship between conscious effects on the physical world and the physical processes which perform them is diagonalizable. That means the set of physical processes which are responsible for all conscious effects on the physical world is an impossible object, for exactly the same reason that Russell's set of all sets which are not members of themselves is an impossible object. It is provable that no such set can exist.


Cathy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CAGPzamWTPYHEFteRGsRTHUSHw1ZAM2Kc-Wz24HxqJspWGz%2BkRQ%40mail.gmail.com.