I’m curious where it breaks for you. Are you not a fan of platonism, or even if you assume it, does it not help? I’ll again admit that the “helping” here is redundant.
There’s other funny dynamics here, at least to me. Ex: IF one can grant platonism, the hard problem is mincemeat. But to get platonism sounding palatable is probably harder than just arguing about consciousness directly.....even though to my eye platonism’s case is even more solid! It’s just even more subtle than existence = consciousness, so harder to argue.
Also hard to get people to care about abstract orthogonal realities.....except in this one case where whoa whoa hold on suddenly you’ve got too much applicative firepower haha.
I’m not a fan of platonism. Definitely not of a traditional platonism, as some separate additional category in fundamental ontology. Looks like something human mathematicians would come up to feel better about themselves. Even though it is an outside view reasoning, similar to the one people use to dismiss panpsychism—I still don’t see what’s the point, when you can just say that any instance of math working is a physical fact.
The mathematical universe is more likely, but I’m not even sure it is more simple hypothesis, than some other, not so mathy physics.
Assuming it, I can see how not having to worry about existence of high-level abstractions can help. It’s just funny, because “but it IS some other territory” is very overpowered argument. Causality gets weird, but platonists probably love acausual stuff, so whatever. Personally, in this scenario, I worry that mathematical universe doesn’t give existence to some abstraction and so if you rely on this, you can still get zombies on some level. Probably it’s not so limited, but even then, are you supposed to be able to constrain mathematical universe by thinking about abstractions in our world?
I’m curious where it breaks for you. Are you not a fan of platonism, or even if you assume it, does it not help? I’ll again admit that the “helping” here is redundant.
There’s other funny dynamics here, at least to me. Ex: IF one can grant platonism, the hard problem is mincemeat. But to get platonism sounding palatable is probably harder than just arguing about consciousness directly.....even though to my eye platonism’s case is even more solid! It’s just even more subtle than existence = consciousness, so harder to argue.
Also hard to get people to care about abstract orthogonal realities.....except in this one case where whoa whoa hold on suddenly you’ve got too much applicative firepower haha.
weird step functions.
I’m not a fan of platonism. Definitely not of a traditional platonism, as some separate additional category in fundamental ontology. Looks like something human mathematicians would come up to feel better about themselves. Even though it is an outside view reasoning, similar to the one people use to dismiss panpsychism—I still don’t see what’s the point, when you can just say that any instance of math working is a physical fact.
The mathematical universe is more likely, but I’m not even sure it is more simple hypothesis, than some other, not so mathy physics.
Assuming it, I can see how not having to worry about existence of high-level abstractions can help. It’s just funny, because “but it IS some other territory” is very overpowered argument. Causality gets weird, but platonists probably love acausual stuff, so whatever. Personally, in this scenario, I worry that mathematical universe doesn’t give existence to some abstraction and so if you rely on this, you can still get zombies on some level. Probably it’s not so limited, but even then, are you supposed to be able to constrain mathematical universe by thinking about abstractions in our world?