On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 3:55:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> For logical reason, when we assume the digital mechanist hypothesis, we
> just cannot assume more than (very) elementary arithmetic.
>
> The physical reality, to be explained, will need much more than
> arithmetic, but it belongs to the phenomenology of the creature whose
> existence comes from elementary arithmetic. There is no *ontological*
> physical reality: it is determine by the statistics on all computations
> whose existence comes from arithmetic (or anything Turing equivalent).
>
>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
It could that all *physical* reality can be modeled by the SKI combinator
calculus but with the added P (irreducible randomness) combinator, so it
becomes *SKIP*:
https://poesophicalbits.blogspot.com/2013/06/skip-probabilistic-ski-combinator.html
But this leaves "Galileo's error" unaddressed, so ontological (and
irreducible) experientialities (or qualia) are assumed. Thus the prospect
for an *experiential *combinator calculus ...
@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24d69634-fb9c-46d1-9a5d-d2942b37875f%40googlegroups.com.
