Do you understand that the metaphysical claim 'the world is a computer' is a not a claim about the world, but a claim about metaphysics?

My metaphysic is the way I THINK about the world. Obviously the world is unknowable! But we must talk ABOUT the world, least we shut up and say nothing. Ever.

Did you further understand the implication when I said (and pointed you to the paper which discusses it in detail) that "logic is metaphysics"?

Did you understand the two fundamental claims of model-dependent realists?

**Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model**

The above ties directly to your axiom of choice. The metaphysical CHOICES you make have direct consequence upon the way you VIEW the world and the way you SPEAK about it.

What you are doing is arguing (in practice) is arguing that

**Pi*r^2**is a better LANGUAGE for describing a circle than

**x^2 + y^2 = 1**

You are just using DIFFERENT LANGUAGE to DESCRIBE the same phenomenon.

And if you haven't made any choices about metaphysics, then you have never engaged in any metacognition.

The same problem applies. If I am going to be talking ABOUT thinking, I need a language to describe thinking. If there are 10 different ways to describe a circle, how many different ways are there to describe thinking?

Where could I possibly find such a language?

More choices:

1. I can invent one ( which would suffer from Wittgenstein's private Language problem)

2. I can adopt one ( the language of computer science ). Bonus points - computation is empirical, so it's grounded in reality. Yay!

Do you not understand that by saying "the world is a computer" or "my mind is a computer". I am simply saying "lets interpret everything from the lens/models/language of computer science and see if it works?". And guess what? It does. So that's useful then!

It's a pragmatic choice.

Nobody is, and can ever make "claims about reality". Not even physicists. Hence the standard

**MODEL**of physics.

Which is unlikely to be called "standard" in 200 years.

We accept that. Which is why I keep saying ALL MODELS ARE WRONG. But you can't parse what that means to an empiricist while you are stuck in the dreamworld of Mathematics.

OK, but while you have been taking that stance, and working in your tower - a whole huge section of the population has been participating in an activity that is rather similar. And empirical. Computer scientists.

So similar, in fact that what mathematicians call theorem-proving is the same kind of activity as "software writing".

Different models (VIEWS) produce different language, but same output. Same in the sense - IT DOES the same thing.

So, here is me attempting to (metaphorically translate) my perspective in your language (something which you fail to even attempt).

Think of the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence as you would think about any fixed point theorem. A bridge between two "distinct fields".

There is a view-point, from which Mathematics and Computation are equivalent. That view-point is "the observer" in physics.

It is a metaphysical truth. I have CHOSEN my metaphysical axioms.

You are asking me to prove the axiom of choice? (look! I have learned your language!)

Having conversed with you enough, I am betting money that you can't even connect the dots between AC and the Halting problem.

"The world is a computer" means nothing more than "I am going to INTERPRET it as one".Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 7:16 am So you don't claim the world is a computer? Please advise.

Like the current trend in physics to INTERPRET it from the CHOSEN axioms that are the 7 SI units.

It means the same thing a physicist would mean if a physicist were to say "the world is energy".

Because there's no particle that doesn't have some FORM of energy. Which begs the (ontological) question "What is energy?"

So what kind of LANGUAGE would you use to talk about energy? Could you even understand energy via any other means except Mathematical models?

Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding of how to APPLY modeling to the problem of "understanding reality".

You lack teleology.