On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>>
>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That
>> is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
>>
>>
>> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.
>> All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could
>> = mustard.
>
> It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1
> would still be equal to 2.
>
> Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.
You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I
am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the
case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on
me at all.
If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what
everything depends on.
You have to learn logic.
There would be nothing else but you which could know anything or
experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you
are the only truth there is.
Wrong.
>
>
>
>
>> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply
>> to everything.
>
> 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that
> theory.
>
> Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense.
This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the
contrary.
Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense.
I am afraid you have to learn logic.
Logic is local truth.
Nope.
It can never include sense itself let alone the absolute
(pansensitivity). Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the
water, but there is no water there. "=" is a myth of representation.
For authentic presence, there is only 'reminds me of' or 'seems
almost exactly like'.
The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when
possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a
vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order
language). In that case "1+1=2" will be a law, valid in all models of
the theory.
Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives
in, which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still
only a map, and it is a map of distance and measure, not of
experience.
>
>
>
>
>> Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
>> raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the
>> sense which objects make when we count them.
>
> No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.
>
> Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling
> through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to
> the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.
It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their
fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc.
Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things.
Computationalism is not interested in counting feelings (how many
feelings do you have? How many now?), yet it presumes to attribute
feeling to a consequence of counting, using logic that has no idea
what feeling could be. What hubris!
Straw man.
I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we
have to meet them halfway:
http://s33light.org/post/77942035998
>
>
>
>
>> That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond
>> literal objects to virtual objects,
>
> If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an
> hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.
>
> A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a
> bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.
A "real" bucket? I don't know what that is.
It has all of the aesthetic qualities that we expect of a bucket, as
well as what is expected by the microphysical conditions that make
up the bucket.
Ah!
[]p & p.
Good!
Assuming comp, the microphysical is first person plural, as Everett
confirms, and I can prove that real persons meet real buckets in
arithmetic.
"real" is what is under
investigation. If I knew what "real" meant, I would stop doing
research (like you apparently).
Real is the density of aesthetic correspondence relative to the
total continuum of sense.
Really?
>
>
>
>
>> but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.
>
> You don't know that.
>
> I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and
> that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.
Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to
the contrary, notably in the math part.
That's math though. I don't see that it has any connection to the
universe that we live in.
You just cut the connection for it, like the Church.
The fact that machine cannot
see the equivalence between []p and []p & p already entails a tension,
in the virgin Löbian machine, between its interior and exterior
conception of itself. Machines have already a left and right brain,
and I guess the bilaterality of brains exploits this in specializing
the hemisphere into []p and []p & p. Their logics are quite different.
It makes sense to me that machines could have bilateral
functionality. So does a walnut though.
It makes sense I stop answering as you begin to look like a trol.
Bruno
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.
