Just had one if these long discussions with a smart mathematician, and now I notice that sometimes I get the impression that computationalism (the only working philosophical edifice left) is non-obvious to 90% of people. I find that genuinely puzzling.
-
-
-
Replying to @Evollaqi
Even dualism and the different versions of idealism seem to require a computational foundation. Every supernatural entity must ultimately have natural causes (even if those are in a parent universe).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Could you elaborate? What is your account of causation here? Why would a non-contingent entity (say, the number 2) require a cause? Why does your account of causation entail that dualism and idealism require a computational foundation? Thank you for letting me pick your brain!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Evollaqi
Causality is a feature of a model that separates a domain into independent, interfacing systems, whereby the evolution of one system is conditional of interfaced states of the other. If you treat the universe as a single, evolving state, then there is no causation within it.
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
In my usual view, all of mathematics is a priori and does not evolve, so the number 2 cannot be caused. But if you treat Peano's axioms as a computational generator operating on a Platonic substrate, then 2 is caused by a metamathematical machine executing Peano's axioms.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
The question of the cause of 2 is the same as the question of the cause of the shape of the Mandelbrot fractal. The natural numbers are literally a fractal, with Peano's axioms being one possible rule set, and we discover (not create) them and their properties by computation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
If a universe presents itself via discernible differences (information) and is regular enough for computation, then its substrate (if it has one) must necessarily and sufficiently be a computer, i.e. a system capable of regular state change with Turing universality.
4 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
If we are dreams in God's mind, something must allow God's mind to progress in a non-random fashion and store its state. In other words, there must be some computer that runs the dreamer.
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Dualism entails two computational domains. For instance, dualism might allow you to act on this immediate moment in time by intermittently stopping the physical universe, letting the universe that computes your mind process your decision making, then update and commence physics.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
There is no way out of computationalism for a dualist, because computation is an a priori concept, i.e. it does not require physics but covers all possible systems with discernible differences that are capable of deterministic, probabilistic or random change.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Why must the dualist accept computationalism is an a priori precondition on the possibility of everything else? Why not just on the possibility of the physical substrate?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Perhaps minds operate radically differently from the sorts of change we're used to conceiving of?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.