On 13 Oct 2013, at 15:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:04:53 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 08:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Maybe this will help. Here are two criticisms of comp, and two
hypotheses which aim for a more mathematical treatment of PIP
principles under MSR.
Presumption of repeatability (PR) - By overlooking the possibility
of absolute uniqueness,
?
0, s(0), ... are unique.
By absolute uniqueness I mean that something could be utterly
inconceivable before its appearance, and unrepeatable in any way
thereafter. Numbers cannot be created from scratch, they can only be
recycled from the pool of combinatory possiblities. To be unique is
to be immune from precedent or repetition - inherently non-emulable
by definition.
Like the first person experience of here and now. That is non
repeatable, as it supervenes on *all* its 3p repetition.
So, thanks to comp and the FPI, I can make sense of what you say. But
that is first person experience only.
comp must conceive of all events as locally documented stereotypes
of a Platonic template rather than true originals.
"true original" is too much fuzzy.
I think it could not be more clear? An original which has no
possible precedent. The number one would be a true original, but all
other integers represent multiple copies of one. All rational
numbers are partial copies of one. All prime numbers are still
divisible by one, so not truly prime. A true original must be
indivisible and unrepeatable, i.e. one can never be 'new' again, but
the novelty.
OK, OK. In comp, it is probably given by the experiences themselves.
Even in a rotating Gödelian universe with cylclic time, the first
person experience don't repeat.
The first variable (lets call Alpha-X) is original, but all other
variables duplicate the idea of Alpha-X (yellow is an idea which
cannot be duplicated or divided). What I am trying to say is that to
access awareness mathematically I suggest that we would have to
begin with the opposite of cardinality rather than cardinality. Each
moment is neither repeatable nor unrepeatable, quantifiable or
unquantifiable. Transcardinality provides for a leaky primitive, or
primitive of self-modulating leakiness. It is not digital or fluid,
but intimations of waving and granularity are reflected back as
echoes.
No problem. To be short that what the machines explains when you
listen to them.
This contradicts our intuitions
And?
And deserves to be investigated. Our intuitions should, by default,
be treated as the most locally relevant branch of arithmetic truth.
We start from intutions, yes, but then we face the counter-intuitive,
a bit like we start from the self, but then meet the others.
about the proprietary nature of identity
No, this is confirmed, nit contradicted. The first persons too are
unique, and non divisible, necessarily so from their perspective.
If you believe in comp maybe.
Believing in the classical theory of knowledge is enough.
Classical logic +
Kp -> p
K(p->q) -> (Kp -> Kq)
+ (for reflexive enough machine) Kp -> KKp
When Kp is defined by Bp & p (Theaetetus in arithmetic) we get such a
theory (extended by the knowledge version of Löb's formula, the
Grzegorczyk formula B(B(p->Bp)->p)->p. It entails an abstract
asymmetry.
That assumes that numbers can conjure non-numerical results.
No. Comp assumes that. But arithmetic confirms. Beliefs predicate
obeys modal laws.
There is nothing that I can see that supports the idea that
computation can generate new ontologies.
That is not an argument for saying there are none.
and would seem to counterfactually predict a very low interest in
qualities such as individuality and originality,
Gratuitous opportunistic assertion.
How so? Why would 1p experience value novelty if it is just an
outcropping of a machine that by definition can create only
trivially 'new' combinations of copies?
That is not the case. Machine looking inward, in the standard Gödel
sense, get creative, and and only more surprised when digging deeper.
456098209093457976534 is different from 45609420909345797353, but
why does that difference seem insignificant to us, but the
difference between a belt worn by Elvis and a copy of that belt to
be demonstrably significant to many people.
Sure.
and identification with trivial personal preferences. Of course,
what we see the precise opposite, as all celebrity it propelled by
some suggestion unrepeatability and the fine tuning of lifestyle
choices is arguably the most prolific and successful feature of
consumerism.
That is not argument. Looks like propaganda to me.
That's not a counter-argument. Looks like you're defensive to me.
Sure I am. I defend the right of my sun in law to get his steak.
Presumption of finite simplicities - Because comp provides
uniqueness only in the form of the relative scarcity of vastly
complex numbers, it can be said to allow for the possibility of
novelty only in one direction; that of more quantity. New
qualities, by comp, must arise on the event horizons of the UD,
Which is were we live here and now.
That would be true under comp, sure.
yet qualia inherently speaks in a language of rich simplicity
instead of cumbersome computables.
That is not an argument.
No, it's a factual observation. The smell of oranges is rich and
simple without any experienced computation,
Of course, we cannot experience computations. We would need some
sensor nerves in the brain, but that is not the case. We experience
happenings and scenarios, in complex sheaf of computational histories.
other than in connecting the smell with the rest of our associations
with oranges.
With comp, there is no new 'one', but in reality, every human
experience is exactly that.
Hypothesis:
Diagonalization of the unique - Because computation lags behind
experience, no simulation of a brain can catch up to what a natural
person can be,
?
since the potential for their uniqueness is immeasurable and
unprecedented. Also, nothing can be copied before it is unique,
?
so PIP flips the presumption of repeatability (PR) so that all
novelty exists as an absolutely new simplicity as well as a
relatively new complexity, such that the continuum of novelty
extends in both directions.
The false dichotomy posed by comp in which we are forced to choose
between the truth of Church-Turing and the existence of an
infinitely low level of substitution for human personhood is
exposed because under PIP, computation is a public repetition of
what is irreducibly unrepeatable and private. Computation can never
get ahead of experience, because computation is an a posteriori
measurement of it.
The computer model of what an athlete will do on the field that is
based on their past performance will always fail to account for the
possibility that the next performance will be the first time that
athlete does something that they never have done before. Natural
identities are not only self-diagonalizing, natural identity itself
is self-diagonalization. The emergence of the unique always cheats
prediction, since all prediction belongs to the measurements of an
expired world which did not yet contain the next novelty.
?
Pushing UD - My admittedly limited understanding of UDA gives me a
picture of the UD as a program which pulls the experienced universe
behind it as it extends the computed realm ahead of local
appearances. It assumes a priori arithmetic truth which simply 'is'
which produces the future from a fixed past.
?
All phenomena are built bottom up from generic, interchangeable
bits. The hypothesis under PIP is that awareness is pushing the UD,
not being pulled by it. Each new number is the residue of an
unprecedented experience as it decays from immeasurable private
qualia into quantifiable public reflections. Every measure requires
a ruler. Some example which is presented as an index for
comparison. A "new Michael Jordan". A third world war. The
uniqueness comes first, and the computability follows - fudging and
filling as necessary, including ways which could be interpreted as
supernatural (retrocausational discontinuities, mysterious lucky
coincidences, etc).
?
Hmm...
You write too well, and that does not help you. It looks like bad
politics. Your approach avoids the problems by deeming them as not
solvable at any level.
I don't deem them as unsolvable at any level, I understand why
Comp's assumption of solving them is based on a couple of bad
assumptions - namely
1. the universality of recursion,
You mean Church thesis. This is a very solid hypothesis.
and
2. complexity-driven novelty.
Hmm...
I propose solving them by reversing those two assumptions, so that
1. Recursion is assumed to be derived from primordial spontaneity
But primordial spontaneity are complex notion. You explain the simple
(learnable in high school) from the abstruse and complex. You are the
one driven by complexity here.
rather than the other way around.
2. Novelty perpetually re-asserts simplicity at the same time as it
expands complexity.
No problem with this, but again this is not a problem for a
computationalist.
This makes
3. The expanding event horizon of the UD is an a posteriori
documentation into storage, not an active and fertile entropy
attractor, which is a priori to recording or measure.
4. Comp untrue by virtue of diagonalization of immeasurable novelty
against incompleteness. Sense out-incompletes arithmetic truth, and
therefore leaves it frozen in stasis by comparison in every instant,
and in eternity. Comp cannot animate anything except through the
gullibility of the pathetic fallacy. (Harsh words if taken
personally, but I'm not trying to provoke you Bruno, I'm trying to
express the full import of this shift in thinking. The future of
human understanding depends, ultimately, on our ability to graduate
from the cul-de-sac of mechanisms to the more profound truth of
animisms.
Think about it?
I found a youtube video, and will try to research for it, a rather
nice explanation, by a robotist engineer, who was also also a naïve
japanese animist, of why animism implies comp.
He was interviewed aside of one of its creation, a chatty woman-like
androids, and the journalist ask him if he was not afraid that the
general public might believe that such mechanical woman is truly
thinking and conscious.
He answered that he was pleased by that reaction, and not astonished,
because, for the japanese, there is just no doubt that computers and
robots are conscious, because they already believe that all machine
(including doors and houses) are conscious, even pebble.
If that comp is pathetic fallacy, then animism is even more pathetic.
If you defend animism, then it is will seem two times more vexing for
my sun in law to be said not enjoying the steak.
It is almost like saying anything can be conscious, except the (person
incarnated in the) computers.
Bruno
Craig
This kills at the start all possibility of progressing. *all* your
sentences needs a lot of clarification and justification.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
