As a consequence of its validity: Neuroscience will not make progress in explaining consciousness. The symbol grounding problem will remain unsolved in computational systems.
As a theory with explanatory power: It describes pathologies and states related to consciousness. It addresses and potentially resolves the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
As a theory with predictive power: Interestingly, while it seems to have little direct connection to consciousness (admittedly, it sound like gibberish), there is a conceptual link to second-order logic and Einstein synchronization. The argument is as follows: since second-order logic is a construct of the human brain, Einstein synchronization—or more precisely, Poincaré–Einstein synchronization—may not be fundamentally necessary for physics, as nature would avoid it either way. (This does not mean that Relativity is wrong or something like that.)
If the speed of light is not assumed to be isotropic, then defining simultaneity and synchronizing clocks requires reasoning about functions that assign speeds to different directions. Such reasoning transcends first-order logic and enters the realm of second-order logic, where we quantify over sets or functions. This suggests that the constancy of the speed of light is not merely a physical assumption, but also a simplifying logical convention that avoids higher-order complexity.
There is a part in the text that addresses the why and how:
The apparent dependence on simultaneity conventions may merely reflect a coordinate choice, with a real, underlying speed limit, with or without parity, still preserved across all frames. This is not good for EN, but also not catastrophic.
There is a general consensus that an undetectable ether could, in principle, coexist with special relativity, without leading to observable differences. As such, it is often regarded as “philosophically optional”—not required by current physical theories.
Many physicists anticipate that a future theory of quantum gravity will offer a more fundamental framework, potentially resolving or reframing these issues entirely.
Basically: I say symbols are a creation of a brain in order to be self-referential. (Even though it’s not. I can address this.) So symbols should not pop up in nature. Einstein uses a convention in order to keep Nature from using symbols. Without Einstein convention the speed of light is defined by the speed of light. Thus the speed of light is a symbol. I say: This will be resolved in a way.
What is a useful prediction that eliminatism makes?
Eliminative Nominalism predicts:
As a consequence of its validity:
Neuroscience will not make progress in explaining consciousness.
The symbol grounding problem will remain unsolved in computational systems.
As a theory with explanatory power:
It describes pathologies and states related to consciousness.
It addresses and potentially resolves the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
As a theory with predictive power:
Interestingly, while it seems to have little direct connection to consciousness (admittedly, it sound like gibberish), there is a conceptual link to second-order logic and Einstein synchronization. The argument is as follows: since second-order logic is a construct of the human brain, Einstein synchronization—or more precisely, Poincaré–Einstein synchronization—may not be fundamentally necessary for physics, as nature would avoid it either way. (This does not mean that Relativity is wrong or something like that.)
There is a part in the text that addresses the why and how:
The apparent dependence on simultaneity conventions may merely reflect a coordinate choice, with a real, underlying speed limit, with or without parity, still preserved across all frames. This is not good for EN, but also not catastrophic.
There is a general consensus that an undetectable ether could, in principle, coexist with special relativity, without leading to observable differences. As such, it is often regarded as “philosophically optional”—not required by current physical theories.
Many physicists anticipate that a future theory of quantum gravity will offer a more fundamental framework, potentially resolving or reframing these issues entirely.
Basically: I say symbols are a creation of a brain in order to be self-referential. (Even though it’s not. I can address this.) So symbols should not pop up in nature. Einstein uses a convention in order to keep Nature from using symbols. Without Einstein convention the speed of light is defined by the speed of light. Thus the speed of light is a symbol. I say: This will be resolved in a way.