So why think anything else is computable if even maths isn't? Unrelatedly I confess I was riled by “computationalism the only working philosophical edifice” in a way I wouldn't be by “computationalism is an interesting idea worth exploring.”
-
-
an aside: I think we detoured from computationalism per se when I said No to “The theory that there are others with minds similar to mine has more explanatory and predictive power than its negation?”. That No is driven by …
-
standardish criticisms of empiricism, namely sense-data sceptism and the problem of induction. The detour interests me, but please don't feel obliged to share my interest. I think what I'm trying to do on this thread then is update/restate those arguments in your vocabulary …
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The degree to which your universe yields to rational inquiry is an indication for it having a mechanical ground truth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"a dream universe is not mechanical" - maybe so. But dreams have a coherent internal logic (even though often a acausal one) which can be scientifically analysed.
-
Dreaming tends to disrupt the coherence of the observing system, too. Even if they don't, the dream may for instance change based on your theory, which makes analysis very difficult, but if you have enough stable resources you may be able to come up with a dream generator theory.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You won't know, though, since the "truth" can change, and you won't know that it did. Just like in a dream you usually don't remember what happened earlier in the dream. Regularity and "truth" are always localized.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.