On 12/2/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I don't think it's so simple as applying Occam's razor. In my example "red" is an
experience that from the perspective of conscious thoughts may have no explanation,
i.e. is fundamental.
Like the guy in Washington cannot explain why he is the one in Washington. But we can
explain why he cannot explain it, and in general we can explain why machines are first
person confronted with arithmetical first person truth that they have to feel as
fundamental and unexplainable.
But from the perspective of biology has an explanation in terms of physics and
chemistry. From an evolutionary perspective it has an explanation in terms of survival
advantage. So Occam's razor cuts different ways depending on the perspective.
This is an abstract "base problem", but with comp the points of view don't depend on the
choice of base machine, and we can refine the use of Occam razor for each points of
view. In fact we can use it only one time, for the Turing universal ontology.
They don't depend on the choice of base machine because you've chosen Turing computation
as fundamental. That doesn't show that something else could not have been chosen as
fundamental instead.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
