On 15 Sep 2009, at 16:19, m.a. wrote:
>
> A modest question. What's left of materialism (to even argue about)
> when orthodox theoretical physics itself sees the world in terms of
> virtual particles and one-dimensional strings? m.a.
>
Important question. Some materialist could argue that "virtual" has
not the same meaning in physics than in computer science, and that
this can lead to confusion, but the question addresses the point that
the notion of primitive matter is not clear already in from a purely
physicist's standpoint.
Actually it is possible to be immaterialist, yet still physicalist.
The MGA shows that materialism is empty of possible explanation, but
UDA+MGA shows that physicalism has to be wrong. This change nothing to
current physics, like Darwinism will not change the biology of the
current species. It just shows that 'Darwinism' has to be extended
deeply into the origin of the physical laws themselves, in a sense. It
means that the relation between math and physics are more intricate
than simply a question of applicability.
And then there are the many evidence from number theory itself, that
physics could be a chapter of number theory, like the Moonshine realm.
But that is another topic.
Bruno
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
>
> >
> >
> > On 14 Sep 2009, at 19:46, Flammarion wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13 Sep, 09:02, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >>> On 12 Sep 2009, at 16:42, Flammarion wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 11 Sep, 19:34, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11 Sep 2009, at 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Once you say "yes" to the doctor, there is a clear sense in
> which
> >>>>> "you" (that is your third person relative computational state,
> the
> >>>>> one
> >>>>> the doctor digitalizes) exist in arithmetic, or exist
> >>>>> arithmetically,
> >>>>> and this in infinite exemplars, relatively to an infinity of
> >>>>> universal
> >>>>> numbers which executes the computation going through that state,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> this in the arithmetical sense, which implied a subtle
> mathematical
> >>>>> redundancy.
> >>>
> >>>> Not at all.
> >>>
> >>> It follows from saying "yes" to a material re-incarnation. I
> have no
> >>> clue why you say so.
> >>
> >> No consequences about an immaterial re-incarnation
> >> follow from saying yes to a mteriali re-incarnation
> >
> > The epistemological consequence that physicalism is false follows
> from
>
> CLIP...
>
> > MGA.
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Sep 15 2009 - 16:57:49 PDT