On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:29, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
> wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not claim that UDA is "flawed". I claim it is incomplete and
based on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can
reason as if the physical world does not exist and discuss ideas
that imply the existence of Becoming and measures there of (time)
all the while using axioms that forbid their existence. It is the
sound of one hand clapping in a mind that cannot imagine air.
I don't see why any of AR implies the existence of becoming.
OK. See below.
Nor do I understand how Bruno gets computations out indexically.
I don't get the computation indexically, unless you mean the indices
of the phi_i.
Indexical was referring to the mathematics of self-reference used in
AUDA. It is the one obeying G and G*, and whose variants gives the
person points of view (including the "physical one").
That the computation are emulated through number relations in
arithmetic is quite standard. It is already almost explicit in Gödel
1931, although nitpickers could say this only appears really
"officially" in Hilbert and Bernays.
It is technically easy, but long and tedious to do that in detail.
When done, there can be some opposition coming from the fact that
people confuse computations (the abstract notion), and their
description in term of numbers.
If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or if
you have played with a couple of universal system (machine or
language), and have even a rough idea how Gödel's theorem can be
proved in arithmetic (= by PA itself), you should not have too much
difficulty to conceive that the sigma_1 number relations constitute a
universal system, and thus emulate all Turing machines and brains.
Then AR does the rest (assuming comp 'course).
And then you have your explanation of becoming, up to one serious but
fertile difficulty.
Indeed, once you understand that all subjective experiences, which
include the subjective feeling of becoming, are emulated in
arithmetic, the "illusion" of becoming is explained.
The problem is that by the FPI, we must still explain the statistical
persistence of such feelings, and here UDA explains that such
persistence can only come from the relative FPI, which can be
translated in math, and that reduce physics to mathematics.
It does not necessarily make the physical into a mathematical
structure. It makes the whole coupling consciousness/physicalness into
an arithmetical internal phenomenon.
Hope this helped a bit,
Bruno
I suspect you don't, either, so you assume he uses "becoming" - if
so we both need to know exactly what Bruno is arguing actually
happens (I use the word under erasure!) before we can have an
opinion on whether he's right or not.
I have to ask, do you accept block universes? If not imho you're
probably arguing from a false premise yourself.
The UDA can be useful and it is interesting, but it is a castle
built in midair and expected to float free because the designer does
not admit the existence of gravity.
"That's fighting talk!" :-)
--
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.
