Le 10-mai-05, à 06:33, Lee Corbin a écrit :
> Why not instead adopt the scientific model? That is, that
> we are three-dimensional creatures ensconced in a world
> governed by the laws of physics, or, what I'll call the
> "atoms and processes" model.
Because we don't need that hypothesis.
That's nice because that hypothesis entails three big unsolved problems:
- what is matter (particles, processes, ...) and where does matter
come from ?
- what is mind ?
- how are they related ?
No doubt that physics gives an admirable compact description of our
neighborhood. But it puts the data "mind" under the rug. What could be
an admirable methodological simplification is now accepted like a
religion. I would not call it a scientific model.
Of course in scientific communication, we cannot use first person
evidences, but it is a category error to derive from that sound
interdiction that we cannot make third person scientific theories
*about* first person phenomena.
> About observer-moments, I would
> say what LaPlace answered to Napoleon about a deity:
> "I have no need of that hypothesis".
But you cannot say they does not exist. You would be lying to yourself.
You are living just one of them right now.
Of course when I say I don't need the hypothesis of "the laws of
physics" I am anticipating the successful derivation of QM from
arithmetical observer moment. It seems to me I got enough to at least
be doubting we need in principle the laws of physics, and the
comp-physics I did derived from the computationalist hypothesis,
although it cannot yet be considered as a real competitor of QM right
now, it is in advance, right now, by putting light on the three
questions above, as I will try to make clear without technics asap (on
both list).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Tue May 10 2005 - 09:47:40 PDT