Re: Bruno's argument

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:41:53 +0200

Le 24-juil.-06, à 09:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

> It's only a coincidence in the literal sense of the word, i.e. two
> things happening simultaneously. My point was to explore the idea of
> supervenience, which (to me, at any rate) at first glance seems a
> mysterious process, and we should cut mysterious processes from our
> theories whenever possible: "entities should not be multiplied
> unnecessarily". Computations exist eternally as mathematical objects,
> regardless of whether there is a physical world or not.


> But certain computations are selected out through being isomorphic
> with physical structures and processes (or simulations thereof):

I would have said that certain computations are selected out by giving
high relative measure for locally stable consciousness experiences, and
then those relative computations will defined what is physical from
inside. this explains (or at least makes it possible to explain) why
apparent physical laws are isomorphic to mathematical laws. The
physical would be the mathematical as seen from inside by mathematical

> a parabola, the number three, a mind. We are happy to say that the
> first two of these are not "caused" by physical processes even when
> they manifest as if they are, and I think the same consideration can
> be applied to mind. What physical structures consciousness is
> isomorphic with and why is another question.

Consciousness would be isomorphic with relative or conditional average
on *all* computations, which can be made matematical by Church Thesis.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Jul 25 2006 - 05:44:09 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST