On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure
sense making and sense experience.
It makes the minimal sense *you* need to understand what we talk
about. That sense has already been studied and has itself some
mathematical representation.
Then, once you have the numbers, and the laws of + and *, you can
prove the existence of the universal numbers and their computations.
The universal numbers are the sense discovering machine.
It doesn't matter how minimal the sense is by our standards. In that
frame of reference, before we exist, it is much sense as there could
ever be. If there is sense to make + and *, then numbers can only
act as conduit to shape that sense, not to create it. You're
interested in understanding numbers, but I'm only interested in
understanding the sense that makes everything (including, but not
limited to numbers).
You ignore the discovery that numbers can understand and make sense of
many things, with reasonable and understandable definitions (with some
work).
All that can still make sense in the theory according to which sense
is a gift by Santa Klaus.
And this is not an argument against your theory, nor against the
existence of Santa Klaus.
Concerning your theory, I find it uninteresting because it abandons
my entire field of inquiry: making sense of sense.
I don't think abandoned as much as frees it from trying to do the
impossible. I see mathematics as being even more useful when we know
that it is safe from gaining autonomous intent.
Comp implies that Arithmetic is not free of autonomous intent,
trivially. But computer science provides many realities capable of
justifying or defining autonomous intent.
I was talking about the theory of comp being over-extended to try to
explain qualia and awareness.
It helps to formulate the problems, and provides way to test indirect
predictions.
But again you are pursuing the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp.
But in logic and computer science, we do have theories relating
formula/theories/machine and some mathematical notion senses
(models, interpretation, valuation) usually infinite or transfinite.
But I have never said that you are wrong with your theory. Only that
the use of your theory to refute computationalism is not valid.
Not valid by what epistemology though?
Yes, that is your problem. You seem unaware of the most simple
universal standard, which are basically either classical logic, or
another logic, but then made explicit.
It's not that I'm not aware, it's that I think it doesn't work for
consciousness unless you beg the question by assuming that
consciousness comes from logic.
Then you become non sensical, at least for the others. Somehow you
confess you have to abandon logic to make my sun in law into a zombie.
You make my point.
It begs the question if you use the logic that gives rise to comp to
refute a conjecture that explicitly questions logic as primordial.
If you refute comp with a non standard logic, you have to make it
explicit.
I do make it explicit. In the matter of 1p awareness, I refute all
possible logic with the deeper reality of sense.
Good 1p intuition, but the machine already knows that, and they can
know that this cannot been used to justify that they are (necessarily
unknown for them) machines/numbers.
But you will have to motivate the use of that logic,
Why would I have to motivate the use of sense if I don't have to
motivate the use of standard logic? All I have to do is stop
presuming that math can make color and then begin to understand why.
But comp explains why. I keep explaining that arithmetic seen from
inside escapes somehow the mathematics accessible to the machine.
and it seems that changing the logic to refute comp, is like trying
to rotate the solar system to be in front of your computer (it is
simpler to rotate yourself).
I'm not changing the logic, I'm denying that it is relevant.
This is worst than "don't ask". It is: "let us be irrational".
Consciousness is what we are looking for and consciousness is
required before logic.
Like the far away galaxies are required before the telescope, but that
does not make the telescope irrelevant to detect the galaxies.
Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do use
it, it seems to me, except that you seem to decide opportunistically
to not apply it to "refute" comp.
You really do make my point. I did a reductio ad absurdum of your
proposition. My chance! You defend the absurdum.
What could I ever add to that?
Now, instead of the numbers, I could have taken many other things,
which are just well known, like any programs in a universal
programming languages, or their ancestors: like Church lambda-terms,
Turing "machines", or Shoenfinkel-Curry combinators. In all case,
there two, some laws have to be obeyed, and they defines the
elementary "actions" that such entities can do.
I think that mathematics is lacking a language to refer to the
opposite of itself. Here's a related post from yesterday:
If we turn Incompleteness around, for example, we get something like
intuition. Any informal-non-system contains unanticipated
reflections of formality..surprising quasi-truthful insights from
out of thin air,
Hmm... I can make sense on this.
Cool. I see no reason why it couldn't, in the right hands, be an
important new mathematical concept.
I was able to make sense on this in term of the arithmetical
hypostases, to be sure.
What would the opposite of the hypostases look like?
I am not sure what you mean. I am not sure "opposite" applies to
"hypostases". There is already enough opposition between all hypostases.
like an oracle.
Well, here I can, but I doubt your are using the word in the
technical usual sense.
I'm using it to refer to divination techniques like the I Ching or
Tarot. Intentional randomness (shuffled cards, tossed coins) plus a
wide aperture for metaphor allows a kind of Dark AI to be revealed.
Where AI logic seeks to automate sense, the oracle seeks to animate
nonsense.
That is the particular case of the random oracle. Comp predicts that
machines are "confronted" to some random oracle, and to infinities
of machines trying to exploits it in some ways.
Randomness comes up in comp predictions?
Yes. At step seven, as the UD will notably dovetail on all normal
differentiation, on a continuum. The iterated WM self-duplication is a
part of UD*.
If we turn Church-Turing around, we get non-universal, non-machines
= unique individuals.
You might still get a "Church-thesis", but for larger class of
function.
Would that be a complete enough reversal though?
I see what you meant. But if we are non universal machine, then we
are closer to the dolls. Obviously, we are universal numbers. We are
even Löbian numbers, which are universal numbers capable of knowing
that they are universal.
I think that we are obviously not numbers,
The machine knows that if she is a 3p local-relative number, then her
1-p is not a number.
but the opposite. In a sense... names. Names are a simplified
version of the opposite of numbers, if by names we mean
intentionally applied, proprietary, and unique gestalts (since
numbers are unintentional, generic, and redundantly constitutive).
Not bad! But that is what the notion of universal number makes
possible: to interpret numbers as name. It gives to N a structure of
an applicative algebra, where you can define a new (partial) operation
#, with x # y = phi_x(y), x becomes a name. That is what universal
numbers do, naming and searching, and falling in perplexity abyss when
looking inward.
My suspicion is that such a language would help define or model
previously undefinable phenomenological conditions. Anti-numbers,
(names which are intrinsically semi-proprietary?), Anti-operators
(metaphorical and synchronistic?)
There is no doubt that the more you study comp, the more you have
tools to build a non-comp theory. But note that the hypostases still
will do their work. Comp is really omega-comp, and you can weaken it
in the transfinite.
Then the zero idea came up again...
OH: A complex number z is said to be purely imaginary. If it has no
real part, i.e., R[z] = 0. The term is often used in preference to
the simpler "imaginary" in situations where z can in general assume
complex values with nonzero real parts, but in a particular case of
interest, the real part is identically zero. 0 is a pure imaginary
number .
S33: If the part is identically zero, but zero is entirely
imaginary, does that mean that its identicality is also imaginary?
If we carry through the idea that 0 is imaginary, then any time we
qualify something as being 'not' we are being figurative, and the
reality would always be some infinitessimal fragment. Not would
literally be 'almost not'.
OH: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IdenticallyZero.html
S33: But what I'm proposing is that vanishing itself is identically
zero, then vanishing may be infinitesimally figurative. Nothing can
vanish completely in reality, even the difference between A and A.
Can zero be said then to be 'that which is not anything, *not even
itself*.
Usually we prefer to consider zero not that exceptional, and the
usual rule of identity applies. 0=0.
That sounds like just convention though.
I can hardly see that as a convention. A triviality perhaps, but I
doubt I could make sense of "=" and "0" in case someone asserts that
he believes that 0 is different from 0. I will automatically see
there some metaphor, analogy, poetry, or abuse of words, depending
on the context.
It depends on what sense you are using. The 0 of nothing is
different from the 0 in 1000.
1000 is just an abbreviation for the polynomial 1*10^3 + 0*10^2+
0*10^1+ 0*10^0. And the 0 there is the "0 of nothing".
Each 0 in 1000 is a different value.
Not at all. It is the same value multiplying different values (10^2,
10^1, 10^0)
By cracking open the definition of zero itself, I'm bringing
mathematics closer to reality in which 0 is impossible, in an
absolute sense.
I guess you mean 0 sense is impossible, in which case the machine
agrees with you. Too bad you don't listen to "zombies".
All absence is only an expectation within some event that is present.
Well said, but that's 1p.
When we apply this to ontology (and I think we should) it means we
must accept that nothing has vanished. What happens instead is that
things nearly vanish from some set of perspectives. The gap between
nearly vanishing and vanishing is entropy. Entropy is how perception
compensates, fudges, fills in, etc so that what is for all practical
purposes absent (i.e. the past) becomes elided or removed. Even the
removal is not total, not real, its just a delay. Eventually all
that has been denied must be revealed as unvanished from some
perspective or encounter.
The reverse of this entropic clipping of the infinitesimally
unvanished would be what I call significance. An augmentation of
sensitivity or motive so that a near-vanished experience is
encountered first as fiction. In other words, entropy makes things
seem to disappear (like the past, coherence, certainty, etc) which
really haven't, and significance makes things seem to appear, but
also significance increases the quality of 'thingness' beyond the
thing. You could say that entropy masks presence to the point of
near absence, and significance stretches near-absence to the point
of re-presence.
I have no clue what you are really talking about.
I'm tallking about the implications of zero being considered
impossible instead. You get two infinitessimals instead, one the
smallest possible fraction of 1, and the other the smallest possible
fraction of -1. When we apply it to physics or metaphysics, we could
read it as the difference between entropy (almost nothing) and
significance (almost something) with sense bridging the gap from
almost to approximated.
Even if one want to see some sense there, it is a regression to
consider zero as impossible, and it is non sense, given the number
of incarnation of 0 in our neighborhood.
It's not a regression, or nonsense, it's a refinement and
realization that there can never truly be a complete absence.
In some 1p sense, I can make sense of this. Again, you work out your
theory, which might be interesting, but you evade the point. What you
say might be found by machines, and is rather close to what the
ideally correct machine feels, but again, that does not mean, a
fortiori here, that machine can't have that first person perspective,
where sense is incorrigible, never empty, and non nameable or
describable in any 3p way bey herself.
Look, I have read below, and will read the two remaining part 2 later,
and may be make some comment, but I suggest you try to write a post
focusing on your argument that comp is necessarily false.
You made that proposition, you insist on that proposition. But you did
not provide one argument, on the contrary, you make my point in
confessing that you have to abandon logic.
You are describing rather well that 1p phenomenology, but that is not
enough to refute logically comp, as indeed a similar phenomenology is
shared by all 1p view of any correct machine.
Your theory is close to Brouwer intuitionism, and to solipsism, and
indeed the []p & p of the machine is like that too, and it hates
machines and formalism. It is the "barbaric child", the self-extending
self, the one who will understand, or not, that his freedom is limited
by the freedom of possible other self, and learn to compose and
perhaps develop trust and faith in the others, and in the other
theories.
Solipsists, like bosons, can add and cohere and that lead to
nationalism or radicalism, when many becomes a one, against the
others, in the concrete, and there is no need to go there, but your
decision to exclude entities because they are digital seems to proceed
in that way.
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/d/optout.
