On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can understand, once cleared from
arithmetic-logic-metaphysic misticism, the determination of the
laws
from infinite "competitive" computations follow Solomonoff's
theorem
of inductive inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff
's_theory_of_inductive_inference
Or it should. But the problem is that Bruno did not gives a weight
for
each computation in order to stablish the outcome of what the
pencil
does in the air. Neither the algorithmic complexity of each
computation (Solomonoff) nor any other. Therefore, it is a
complete
chaos cut by some magic 1p collapse of computations, following QM
fashion. And there is where the aritmetic-logic-metaphysic
mysticism
does his job.
... Job that I do not know how it is possible if a computation that
does everithing OK until it convert the pencil in a fat female
soprano
(with big algorithmic complexity) is equally compatible with all
my 1p
observations until that moment, is equally probable than the
computation with much less algorithmic complexity that does its job
right and moves the pencil gracefully without emitting molesting
noises.
So anything goes
Yes, that is the white rabbit problem. Most of my earlier posts on
this list has consisted in explaining why algorithmic complexity
cannot work. It surely plays some role, but we have to extract it
from
the redundancy, no imposed it, as this would mock the consciousness
invariance, and the FPI invariance which follows from comp.
Of course, if you think you can eliminate the white rabbit with only
algorithmic complexity, please do, but you will have to explain why
the 'non algorithmically simple programs' do no more interfere with
the FPI global indeterminacy, and by the delay invariance for the 1p
experiences, that does not seem obvious at all.
You do seem close to grasp the problem.
In any case the problem is in your theory.
That is the result. Yes, it is a problem for comp (which is just
mechanism after Church, Kleene, Turing, Post).
Then, using the most classical theory of knowledge, the problem
becomes a problem in arithmetic.
QM predict a infinite small
probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of
them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but
yours.
QM predict all this by using comp, or an unintelligible dualist theory
of observation.
Yes, with comp we must derive the wave or the matrix from self-
observation, itself extracted from arithmetical self-references
(Gödel, Löb, Solovay).
What is FPI?
First Person Indeterminacy. UDA step 3.
Although it often seems so, this is not a group devoted
to obtaining a certification on Bruno Marchall comp theories.
I have a theorem in a theory (or class of theories extended in an
effective sense).
You
have to be more didactic and can not rely on your writings when asking
concrete questions. If the number of acronyms + theology, logic and
psychologic concepts mixed in single statements grows when the
conversation gets more concrete, then it is no surprise that people
don´t understand you.
Who does not understand? If you have a problem of understanding, just
ask. The subject matter (the mind-body problem) is everything but
simple. Yet we can reason, even get startling conclusions from
admitting very weak form of mechanism.
There are many didactic tricks that you refuse
to use like metaphors and examples.
I avoid metaphor indeed, but that is the custom in science. Examples?
You can find them in the textbook. And/or you can ask any one when you
feel the need.
And this gives to me the
impression that you are hiding consciously or uncosnciously a great
flaw.
?
And my observation is that no one understand you in what is original
in your theory.
?
Apart from the brilliant and interesting first steps.
That is why I read you with attention.
Where precisely the flaw appears?
But until now I don´t find a satisfactory explanation and you confess
that there is not, for the abundance of white rabbits in your theory.
I am a scientist. I do not defend any theory. I just reduce the mind-
body problem into a purely arithmetical "belief in body" problem.
I illustrate that with computer science, and usual definitions in
theology and metaphysics, when we assume comp, we can translate
theological problem into problem of number theory or computer science.
You simply say: the fact that we have no fat soprano singers and white
rabbits aroud, and the fact that comp is true (sorry, it is a theory
that all of us must assume if we are gong to talk in this list) means
that comp have no such flaw and is a task of everyone to find how.
No . It is a task of yourself.
No. It is a task for all honest or correct universal machine trying to
figure out why there is something and why does it hurt.
May be you are not interested in fundamental question. We cannot know
the truth, but we can try theories. Computationalism makes sense, as
we don't know non computable laws in nature, except for the wave
collapse, for those who believe it is physical.
Even a quantum computer is Turing emulable, and I do not bound the
substitution level. Then most of the consequences remains true for
most of the "non-comp" machine's extensions.
I don't know if comp is true or not, I just explains the consequences,
and show their testability.
From my side, I have my own explanation of why algorithmic complexity
plays a role in solomonoff theory of universal induction, without
taking it as an axiom .. And this is the computational nature of life.
That is not the immaterial computation of yours, but the material
computation subject to resource limits of biological systems. I did my
job.
http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com.es/2008/06/ockham-razor-and-genetic-algoritms-life.html
I basically agree with that.
Yet, such explanation relies on comp, I think, and all what I say is
that with comp we must somehow extend that form of evolution for the
laws of physics themselves, through a form of dream competitions, to
put it roughly.
How can a Turing emulable process distinguish in the first person way
a computation in nature from a computation in arithmetic?
I simply ask for yours.
UDA, the 8, or 7, steps gives a problem for any one accepting comp,
including your's in the link provided, unless you can answer the
question above.
I am just illustrating that comp makes it possible to reason more
rigorously, thanks to computer science and the mathematical discovery
of the "universal" numbers/systems/interpreters/machines/theories/...
UDA is the problem, and AUDA is the computer's response to that
problem, already precise enough on some physics that it can be tested.
(and up to now it fits, so comp+classical theory of knowledge is not
yet refuted).
I just take fully the consequence of two facts: the incompleteness
theorem, and the fact that the machine can prove their own
incompleteness theorem.
I am not solving a problem, I am just saying that if comp is true;
then there is a big door to push, in some different direction than the
Aristotelian one, on the fundamental.
Bruno
Bruno
--
Alberto.
--
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-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
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.
