On 12 Jul 2012, at 00:30, John Mikes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
Esse is not percipi. With comp. Esse is more "is a solution to a
diophantine polynomial equation".
------------------------
St.:You have merely replaced the Atoms of the materialists with the
Numbers of neo-Platonists. :_(
---------------------------
Study UDA and AUDA, it is exactly the contrary. Universal machines,
relatively to the arithmetical truth makes the arithmetical reality
into tuburlent unknowns. And matter still exists but is no more
primitive as being the condition making collection of universal
machines sharing part of the sheaves of all local computations.
UDA is an invitation, or challenge to tell me where you think there
is a flaw, for UDA is the point that if we can survive with a
digital brain, at some levels, then the physical reality is not the
source of the reason why we believe in a physical reality. It is a
reasoning Stephen, I repeated it recently on the FOAR list, please
tell me a number between 0 and 7, or 8, so that we can agree on what
we disagree on.
My question is (my) usual: how do you describe EXIST?
In my view whatever passes the mental royeaume DOES indeed exist.
Not the physical world, not the "truth" ideas, ANYTHING. You escaped
my earlier question about the "Nature" (or whatever anybody may call
it/her) - this one is attached to it with your Latin caveat above
exposing the questionable 'percipi' what I indeed included as valid
for 'esse'.
Percipi might be valid for esse, but esse is not *just* percipi, like
in Berkeley statement.
With comp, and the UDA conclusion things are rather clear. We have
ontological existence, and this is given by the sandard meaning we can
give to existential proposition, like Ex(x is a prime number). the
"E" (it exists) is defined by axioms and inference rule.
Then you have epistemological existence, which technically are modal
variant of "E", like []Ex [] P(x), or similar constuction.
In the moment when the "infinite complexity" - the ever unknowable
totality - comes into play, no 3rd c.AD equation can vouch for it
with all the unknowable variants/qualia, beyond our 21.c.
capabilities - many of them potentially factoring into the outcome
of (polynomial, or not) arithmetically fitting equations in known
numbers. Mathematics disallows (in number and qualia) unaccountable
variants when it comes to equations (with potential solutions).
That depends on the theory. I do assume that an implementation of some
computation makes it possible for a consciousness to manifest itself
in some relative way. From this math can associate consciousness to
what machine or number can discover by looking inward.
Also, when you feel the necesscity to include "arithmetic" with
"TRUTH" then you confessed to the partial validity of it.
Why not?
How about the Not (SO?) arithmetic truth? deniable?
Not at all. It exists necessarily. Formal arithmetic is necessarily
different from arithmetical truth, which is much vaster than anything
believable by any humans, numbers or machines . But machines can know
why it has to be like that if they are machines.
Keep in mind that I am working with the comp hypothesis.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
