On 27 Nov 2012, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
How exactly does the comparison occur?
By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from
observation
(the
quantum logic based on the algebra of the observable/linear
positive
operators) and the logic obtained from the arithmetical
quantization,
which
exists already.
<snip>
UDA refers to an argument. It is the argument showing that if
we are
machine (even physical machine) then in fine physics has to be
justified by
the arithmetical relations, and some internal views related to
it.
Isn't an argument a logical construct though? I can't argue a
piece of
iron into being magnetized. There has to be a plausible interface
between
pure logic and anything tangible, doesn't there? It doesn't have
to be
matter, even subjective experience is not conjured by logic
alone. Can
we
use logic to alone to deny that we see what we see or feel what
we feel?
Of course not. Why would logic ever deny this?
On the contrary tangible things obeys some logic usually.
The question though is how does that happen?
Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't
know why
and
how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math in
physics.
With comp there is only math (arithmetic) and from this we can
explain
why
numbers develop beliefs (axiomatically defined) and why they obey
apparent
laws
How do tangible things interface with logic -
I guess they would not tangible if they do not. tangibility ask
for some
amount of consistency.
how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, and
through
what
capacity can they express that obedience?
With comp this can be derived from the laws to which the entities
(actually
0, 1, 2, 3, ...) obeys.
The number tree does not need to know anything for being able to
divide
6,
for example.
Is your answer to 'what makes logic happen?' rooted in the
presumption
of
logic?
At the basic ontological level, I can limit the assumption in
logic
quite
a lot.
I'm not sure why that changes anything at all. I think it makes
it even
worse, because if you have a basic ontological level with very
limited
logical assumptions, and everything is reducible to that, then
what is
it
that you are reducing it from?
?
If a roast pork loin is really a string of binary instructions,
It can be that, but a string + a universal number can be decoded
by a
universal numbers into the apperance of a roast pork.
then why isn't it a string of binary instructions? We do we need
the pork
loin?
Worst, we cannot make sense of it in some absolute ontological
sense, bu
assuming comp, we can't avoid the delusion by the universal
numbers about
it.
Why do binary instructions make themselves seem like pork (or
shapes or
anything other than what they actually are)?
By the decoding process, like 100011011110 can be decoded into
add 0 to
the
content of register 1000. Of course it is more involved in the
"real
case"
of the "roasted pork smelly experiences".
Actually we don't need logic at the base ontological level,
only simple
substitution rules and the +, * equality axioms.
Aren't rules and axioms the defining structures of logic? It
sounds like
this:
C: "How can you justify the existence of logic with logic alone?"
We can't. But we can derive the beliefs in logics in arithmetic.
(We can't derive arithmetic from logic alone, already).
We can derive logic from sense though. All logic makes sense but
not
everything that makes sense is logical.
You are right, even with comp. You need arithmetic above. At
least, and
with
UDA: at most.
B: "Well, you don't need much logic. In fact you don't need any
logic.
All
you really need is logic."
You need logic and arithmetic. Technically it can be shown that
you
don't
need so much logic (equality axioms are almost enough). The
arithmetic
(or
equivalent) part is more important. It is a technical detail.
What does logic and arithmetic need?
?
Nothing, I would say.
Only later we candefine an observer, in that ontology, as a
machine/number having bigger set of logical beliefs. But the
existence
of
such machine does not require the belief or assumptions in that
logic.
I'm not even bringing observers into it. I'm not talking about
awareness
of participants, I'm talking about the emergence of the
possibility of
logic
at all.
Logic is defined by the minimum we assume like
we will say that "p & q" is true, when p is true and q is true,
and only
then.
We will accept that if we assume p and if we assume (p->q), then
we cab
derive q from those assumption.
etc.
Logicians and computer scientist studies those kind of relations
between
proposition. It is a branch of math, and it is not necessarily
related
to
foundations.
So you are saying that logic comes from human teachings about how
we can
simplify the relations of ideas, not a universal primitive which is
capable
of animating matter or minds by itself.
Yes.
That's ok with me, but you don't need any smoke or mirrors
after that,
you are pretty much committed to 'because maths' as the alpha
and omega
answer to all possible questions.
On the contrary. The math is used to be precise, and then to
realize
that
we don't have the answers at all, but we do have tools to make
the
questions
clearer, and sometimes this can give already some shape of the
answer,
like
seeing that comp bactracks to Plato's conception of reality (even
Pythagorus).
This is not much. Just a remind that science has not decided
between
Plato and Aristotle in theology.
How do we know that we aren't making the questions clearer by
amputating
everything that doesn't fit our axioms?
If you believe some axioms is missing, you can add it.
If an axiom does not please to you, you can propose another
theory.
I start from the entire universe as a single indivisible axiom
and refine
focus from there.
What entire universe? What is that, where does it come from? What
is the
relation with consciousness. You start from what I want to explain.
when translated in arithmetic, makes a relative physical
certainty into
a
true Sigma_1 sentence, which has to be provable, and consistent.
Proof and consistency, again, are already features of logic.
What makes
things true? How does it actually happen?
We assume some notion of arithmetical truth. I hope you can
agree with
proposition like "44 is a prime number or 44 is not a prime
number".
What are the mechanics of that assumption though?
In comp we explains that mechanics with elementary arithmetic,
universal
numbers, etc.
We start from what we agree on, since high school.
It is not more circular than a brain scientist using his brain.
I agree it is no more circular than neuroscience, but I think the
current
neuroscientific approach to explaining consciousness is ultimately
circular
too. It might be a clue that the only way that we ourselves can
disengage
from circular thoughts is by using our will to consciously shift
our
attention from it.
Or resolve the circularity. Computer science provides tools for
doing
that.
The details of the propositions are not interesting to me,
rather it is
the ontology of proposition itself. What is it?
That is a very interesting question, but out of topic. Logician
model
often proposition by the set of worlds where those proposition
are true,
and
they often defined world by the set of propositions true in that
world,
making eventually a proposition a set of set of worlds, and a
world a
set of
set of worlds, and there are interesting "galois like" connection,
meaning
interesting mathematics.
It is an entire field of subject.
With comp we don't need to go that far yet, although it is
clearly on
the
horizon.
So comp is a proposition which has not yet proposed a theory of
what a
proposition is.
Indeed. Proposition, as opposed to mere syntactical sentences, is
as
mysterious as consciousness, meaning, reality, etc. We need much
more
progress to handle that kind of things. But we can avoid the
difficulties
in
comp by attaching proposition to couple "sentence" + "what a
universal
machine can do with the sentences". But this does not solve the
riddle,
but
it can help.
Keep in mind that all what I show in how complex the mind-body
issue is
with
comp, if only because we must change our mind on the (currently
aristotelian) physics.
Who proposes?
Again, that is an interesting question too. here comp can
answer, in the
3p view, a number relatively to a bunch of numbers.
Why and how does a number propose (undefined non-numbers?) to
numerous
other
numbers?
By virtue of the fact that they obeys the laws of addition and
multiplication, which enable them to have complex computational
relations
with each others.
How do they do it exactly?
By using their relations with each others. You need to study
some books,
or follow my explanations on FOAR.
What does it mean to use a relation though? It's sensory-motor
metaphor.
You can't redefined all term. I use relation in the usual
(mathematical
sense). A relation on a set A can be defined as a subset of AxA,
for
example.
To use is to employ something as an object for a subjective motive.
That's an higher level notion.
That is the only magic that consciousness contains.
You make some jump here.
Yes, it's only an editorial comment.
Lol
Beyond that, it's just mind-numbing patterns playing themselves
out
forever. Participation is everything and no amount of
interrogating
functions can conceivably synthesize that from logic. Logic does
not
participate, it constrains and guides that which is
participating as an
inert codex of blind axioms.
Not much is assumed, except for UDA, where you are asked if you
are
willing to accept a computer in place of your brain. The
computer is
supposed to be reconfigured at some level of course. We assume
also
Church
thesis, although it is easy to avoid it, technically (but not
so much
"philosophically").
Church thesis is similarly reflexive logic. There is no reason to
presume
that because anything that can be put into a Boolean box has other
logical
commonalities that this (unquestionably important and worthwhile)
commonality extends to causally efficacious presence. An air
conditioner
doesn't create air. Church assumes the air of sense making from
the
start
and then shows how all manner of air conditioners can be
assembled from
the
same fundamental blueprint. I'm not falling for it though. It's a
sleight of
hand maneuver. While functionalism does card tricks with logic,
the
power
and reality of sense supplies the table, tablecloth, stage,
lights,
audience, and girl to saw in half. Yes, I see, you pulled my
card, King
of
Diamonds, very impressive - truly, but how does it taste like
chocolate
and
dance Gangnam style?
Comp explains why we cannot completely explain the sense, and
this is
rather nice as it prevents reductionist theories of sense.
On the contrary, by being open to sense in machine, comp is
rather open
in
matter of others consciousness.
I don't see that explains the sense at all though. It explains
how to use
a
certain kind of sense in a very powerful and extensible way, but it
doesn't
get to the hard problem.
Indeed, comp does not solve it per se. You need the G/G*
incompleteness
to
approach the explanation, which can be shown to be necessarily
incompletable.
So the observability with measure one is given by []p = Bp & Dt
& p,
with
p arithmetical sigma_1 (this is coherent with the way the
physical
reality
has to be redefined through UDA). Then the quantum logic is
given by
the
quantization []<>p, thanks to the law p -> []<>p, and this makes
possible to
reverse the Goldblatt modal translation of quantum logic into
arithmetic.
Way over my head, but it sounds like logic proving logic again.
It is not your fault. Nobody knows logic, except the professional
logicians, who are not really aware of this.
I talk about logic, the branch of math, not logic the adjective
for all
simple rational behavior that we all know. UDA does not use
logic-branch-math, but of course it use the logic that you are
necessarily
using when sending a post to a list (implicitly).
AUDA needs logic-the branch of math, due to the link between
computer
science and mathematical logic.
That's reasonable to me, but what I'm talking about is getting
behind
the
curtain of 'simple rational behavior that we all know', and what
I find
is
not a Platonic monoilith of idealism, but the ordinary
experience of
discernment and participation. Logic supervenes on sense, but
sense does
not
supervene on logic.
You are right on this. Even with comp.
With comp sense supervene on logic and arithmetic though, in a
testable
way as we get also physics.
Comp bases that supervenience on its own amputated axioms though.
Comp is the bet that we are machine (roughly speaking). This
amputates
nothing, unless you amputate machines from thinking,
consciousness, but
then
it is your theory which amputates certain person.
It says, 'whatever fits in this box also fits in every other box
that is
the
same size'. It disqualifies everything out of its own box though.
As a consequence we lost primitive matter, but then nobody has
ever shown
even one evidence for the existence of primitive matter, beyond the
natural
extrapolation of what we see (which proves nothing for the
ontology).
It has no theory of where logic and arithmetic emerge,
We need to start from simple truth on which you can agree. If you
doubt
that
43 is prime, then I can explain nothing, indeed. But you seem to
start
from
the entire universe, and sense, which nobody can really agree on.
It is
only
recent that scientists approach the notion of sense, and the
notion of
physical universe is controversial.
while it is clear to me that they emerge from sense.
You are lucky.
Counting is the intellectual act of making sense of a quantity
OK, but how will you define quantity, then?
- of naming experiences as an abstract collection.
From what, on what?
Dreams prove that we are perfectly content to enjoy a universe
without
logical consistency, but there is not any proof that I know of
which
suggests that logic relies on qualia or matter. Therefore, it
seems to
me
that logic must either be a psychic phenomenon and therefore not
primitive,
or that psychic phenomena is illogical and the universe which we
think
we
live in is impossible. I don't think the latter is plausible
because it
would undermine our ability to have any kind of meaningful
opinion about
anything real if that were the case.
It is unclear. Logic plays different role at many levels, and so
do
algebra, statistics, arithmetic, computer science.
It isn't clear that logic is the cause. To the contrary, I think
it has
to
be an effect.
No problem with this. I am a bit neutral on this issue.
Comparison is used in the everyday sense.
Yes! Now that I understand. What's wrong with the 'everyday
sense'
being
the reality
That would cut all the funding in fundamental sciences, as this
answer
everything. It is a bit like "why do you waste your time trying
to
understanding the thermo-kinetics of car motor and how car
moves? Why
not
just accept that car moves when we press on the pedal?"
I think just the opposite. My view says that thermo-kinetics is
just the
beginning,
As a beginning it is fuzzy and assumes a priori much more. I do
agree on
the importance of the concept of heat, we might all be some sort
of
steam
engine, but this is more a matter of implementation.
we need to start studying what is the 'we' that presses the
pedal also.
More funding for interdisciplinary science as well as fundamental.
I agree.
The everyday sense is a part of reality, and I would understand
it in
term of the simplest assumption possible. Then my point is only
that if
comp
is true (that is, roughly, if we are machine) then we can already
refute the
lasting current idea that there is a primitive physical
universe. It
gives
at least another rational conception of reality, which gives
the hope
to get
the origin of the physical laws, and the material patterns.
I don't see the advantage of a reality which is primitively
arithmetic
or
primitively physical.
I just show that if comp is correct, then it is enough, and adding
assumptions is cheating with respect to both mind and matter
(and their
relation).
Then I don't see the advantage of a reality which is comp or
materialist.
If you search advantages, then you let your mind open to wishful
thinking,
which is not a truth friendly attitude, even if the Löb formula
seems to
give a sort of role to a form of arithmetical placebo (see sane04
part
2).
Either way we are depersonalized and our lives are de-presented
while
subterranean abstractions crank out automatism with ourselves as
vestigial
deluded spectators, powerless in our inauthentic simulated worlds.
No. I'm just afraid you get some bad math teachers. Or you are
unable to
understand that reductionism is provably dead about numbers and
machines
already. You are the one who put the cold in some place.
It's hidden right in your words. "I'm just afraid you get some
bad math
teachers" is admission that the beauty and warmth of mathematics
requires
seeing them with the right eyes.
Yes, OK.
It's your sense of numbers which is wonderful - your sensitivity
to them,
not the numbers themselves.
That is debatable. I have learn to appreciate the numbers because
some
people found amazing relations, and succeed in convincing me, and
everyone
taking the time to do the work, about the truth of those
relations.
They are just unconscious, automatic fragments of mirror which will
refelect
whatever light is present.
Yes.
If your reason is particularly illuminating in the mathematical-
logical
band
of sense, then it's like lighting up a fluorescent disco with a
black
light.
If I go in there with only my FM radio to listen to, I don't hear
much of
anything.
OK.
If instead we look at what we are looking at, and see realism
for the
sensory experience that it is, then arithmetic truth and
Hermetic arts
fall
out of it organically. Algebra and geometry coexist to serve an
experiential, theatrical agenda, not a functional one.
The sensory realism is 1p, and non communicable, and complex to
describe
(you poetry, novel, movies, music, etc.), so we can't build on
it. But
it is
not because we build on 3p things, that we stop to ascribe
consciousness
to
them, and indeed comp ascribe consciousness to a much vaster set
of
entities
than any form of non comp.
You just illustrate your reductionist conception of number and
machine.
Machine and number I think are as vast a universe as 1p
experience, but
in
the impersonal 3p mode. From my view, it is functionalism which
overstates
3p assumptions and compulsively assigns them to 1p, mainly out of
a fear
of
personal realism.
It assigns 1p to them, yes. Strong AI too. It is part of the
assumption.
The
opposite assumption treats them as zombie. In case of doubt I
think the
attribution of consciousness to zombie is less damageable.
and the specialized logic being one category of specialized
mechanisms
within that?
Logic is not fundamental at all, for UDA, you need only the
everyday
logic that you need to be able to do a pizza. Arithmetic is far
more
important, if only to understand how a computer functions.
Haha, you're still telling me that a little bit of shit in the
tuna
salad
doesn't count. If it tastes like logic, then I don't think you
can use
it to
prop up a primitive that supervenes on logic.
I never use the word logic. I use arithmetic which is infinitely
richer
and stronger. Logic is just a very good tool, like algebra. I
assume
comp,
so it is normal that computer science plays some role, and many
logics
are
related to computer science.
Isn't arithmetic a kind of logic though?
Not really. (of course with "kind of" you might say that
everything is a
kind of something).
Doesn't counting and addition require that an output is guided by
logical
transformations on an input?
Not purely logical. It needs to assume some stuff, like 0 is a
number,
and
that is not logical. The early 20th century logicians have tried to
deduce
"0 is a number" from logic, but they failed, and eventually we
understand
now what it has to fail (failure of logicism, discovery of the
importance
of
intuition in math).
Yet more advanced logic can help for two things, when doing
reasoning:
-showing that a proposition follows from other propositions
(deduction)
-showing that a proposition does not follow from other
propositions
(independence).
Then, concerning the relation between mind, thinking, feeling,
truth,
etc. many result in logic put some light, and that is not
astonishing
once
you bet on comp, even if temporarily for the sake of the
argument.
In logic, the branch of math, the beginning is the most
difficult,
because you have to understand what you have to not understand,
like
formal
expressions.
Logic is just like algebra, and those things imposes themselves
once we
tackle precise theories, and relations between theories. It
helps for
refuting them, or representing a theory in another, etc.
I know that comp invites to math, and that this seems to be a
problem
for
many.
To me the problem with comp is that it perfectly describes a
universe
that
we don't actually live in.
Not at all. Comp reformulate the problem into justifying what we
live in
from arithmetic with the internal views. If this don't match we
abandon
comp. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine emulable,
at some
level.
That assumption makes it so that all internal views are modeled
in a way
which automatically justifies them to comp. It is the yellow
glasses that
prove that everything is yellow.
All theories are such glasses. You statement attacks science, not
just
the
comp assumption. It criticize the act of doing assumption, it
seems to
me.
Of course we can stop science and enjoy the view, and that can be
a good
philosophy of life, but it is not what scientists do.
In theory a formula could move my arm, because my arm could, in
theory,
be
nothing but data, but in fact, that isn't what we see. Most of
our lives
are
struggles for mathematically irrelevant resources - time, money,
sex,
more
money, more sex, etc. They aren't arithmetically interesting
problems.
Don't confuse a tool and what humans do with it.
Why not? What is a tool for humans other than some implement with
which
humans do things?
So human can be guilty, not the tools. Guns are pacific, when
human let
them
sleep in the closet.
The universe which comp describes should be one of florid
plasticity and
constant exploration,
I agree!
not struggle and frustration. How does a computer get
frustrated? Why
would it?
When he explores and got punished,
I think that is an anthropomorphic projection. Is there any
mathematical
evidence which shows outcomes effected by punishment?
As much as with human, by definition as humans are machine, by
the comp
assumption.
Not talking about disadvantageous game conditions, but actual
cruelty and
intention to cause hurt feelings. Do computers care if you punish
them?
Yes. By definition of comp. I mean humans are computer and seems
to care
about punishment.
when authoritative arguments abound, when the elders fear too
much and
the
youth not enough. The universal machine get frustrated when her
universal
inspiration is constrained by the contingencies, despite they
brought
him
here also. That's life.
That is life, but I don't think it's arithmetic.
Yes, but that is due to your a priori that machines cannot think,
be
conscious, ...
But we can suggest better way, and listening to the others is a
good
heuristic, and when the other looks quite different, like with
machine,
we
might learn something.
The way I see it, my way opens the door to a whole new universe of
impersonal artifacts and beauty, while I think with comp, all we
will end
up
doing is reinventing ourselves.
Perhaps. There is a sense to say that the creation is what God
can use to
reivent himself all the time. But why would that prevent
artifacts and
beauty? Is not more beautiful? Well, that's personal taste of
course, a
priori independent of what is, or not.
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.
