On 18 May 2014, at 04:47, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:48:26 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 22:44, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:31:17 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Turing *emulation* is only meaningful in the context of
emulating one part relative to another part that is not
emulated, i.e. is "real".
If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare
with nature.
When we compare with nature we find that some things exist and
some don't.
Like other worlds don't exist, or atoms don't exist ... the
question about what exists hasn't been answered yet. Or indeed
the question about what it means for something to exist.
So is it your view that no matter what comp predicts it's not
falsified because it may be true somewhere else?
I find it hard to read that into what I wrote. (Unless "no matter
what comp predicts" is a slightly awkward, but potentially rather
funny, pun?)
But anyway, no that isn't my view. Either comp is true or it
isn't, which is to say, either consciousness is Turing emulable
at some level, or it isn't. And if it is, either there is some
flaw in what Bruno derives from that assumption, or there isn't.
But the question is about how to test comp. Bruno has offered
that we should compare its predictions to observed physics. My
view is that this requires predictions about what happens here and
now, where some things happen and some don't. "Predictions" that
something happens somewhere in the multiverse don't satisfy my
idea of testable.
But comp do prediction right now. At first sight it predicts white
noise and white rabbits, but then we listen to the machines views
on this, and the simplest pass from provability to probability (the
local erasing of the cul-de-sac worlds) gives a quantization of the
arithmetical sigma_1 proposition. A good chance that arithmetic
provided some quantum erazing, or destructive interference in the
observations.
To me, Gleason theorem somehow solve the measure problem for the
quantum theory, but we have only some promise that it will be so
for comp, as it needs to if comp is true.
My point is that if you say yes to the doctor, and believe in peano
Arithmetic, that concerns you.
It is a problem. We have to find the equivalent of Gleason theorem
in arithmetic, for the arithmetical quantum logics.
I submit a problem, and I provided a testable part. The quantum
propositional tautologies.
Bruno
So it looks like it isn't just me that doesn't understand your
story of testability.
So may I do a little test here. Can anyone here, other than Bruno,
explain this paragraph in terms of realizable falsiibility and
attest to that?
"By looking to our neighborhood close enough to see if the physics
match well a sum on infinities of computations. If comp is true, we
will learn nothing, and can't conclude that comp has been proved, but
if there is a difference, then we can know that comp is refuted
(well,
comp + the classical theory of knowledge)."
How does the end part "well, comp + the classical theory of
knowledge" change the commitment to falsification?
Good question. I let other answer, but frankly, it is just a matter
of *studying* the papers. Note that in some presentation, I take
the classical theory (or definition) of knowledge granted, but in
other presentation, I explain and answer your question with some
detail, and it is the object of the thesis.
More on this, and you can ask the question to me. The point is in
focus, not the success of my pedagogy on this list.
Bruno
I think you're confused where your theory ends and scientific
standards, conventions, definitions begin. The arguments and
explanations you lay out in your theory, may certainly arrive at
various conclusions for the implications comp has for the world. And
I'm quite sure within that you offer your explanation for the
falsifiability of comp.
But you're getting ahead of yourself dramatically Bruno, if you
think the details of your argument is an influential factor in
settling the matter of falsifiability. What you profess within your
theory is irrelevant...on this encapsulating turf.
In fact from memory you've made about 4 arguments at various times.
In at least one of your papers you offer this...little package of
philosophical reasoning, which 5 lines and 30 seconds later
concludes your work is falsifiable so scientific. I mentioned at the
time the same argument can be formulated for all philosophy...and
probably religion and everything else. Then you insisted your theory
is falsifiable because its fundamental position requires huge
accomplishments, like deriving physics.
So I mentioned the same argument is applicable to any and all ToE,
by definition. Which is obviously true...but you reacted angrily,
apparently denying you ever constructed such an argument. It would
be very easy to guide you to where you said it...repeatedly...and to
my protests. Just as it would have been easy to demonstrate multiple
occasions on which you claimed computations are intrinsically
conscious, and the other events too. The reason I haven't is
intellectual respect and a wish to accept any clarification or edit
as the right version if you say it is.
I've gone out of my way to do this...but the plain data accumulated
now Bruno, is that you're confused what the meaning of
falsifiability actually is. Your angry rebuff concluded in making me
responsible for 'not getting it'....before yet another
'clarification' that your theory simply leaves 'no choice'...and
it's this property of contraining to block all paths but the one,
that delivers the scientific standard.
But you've moved past that in the few posts since, and now the
reason your theory is falsifiable is because we can look to the
local physicals, and compare that with taking a summation of an
infinite multiverse of possible computations. Apparently, if there
is a 'difference' comp is falsified. Well...not quite....comp +
classical natural law is falsified.
There is nothing - no part - of this formulation...or any of the
other more careful attempts that I have seen, that even begins to
exhibit the properties of testability. But what's really telling is
that you describe a sort of, process....a sequence of
steps.....apparently with a falsification as one possible outcome.
So...you define falsifiability as a process....a process within the
arguments of your theory. Each step of the process, your theory has
not even begun to approach actually resolving...or even the basic
thinking of what such a resolution would look like. A summation of
an infinity of multiverses of all possible computations? And who or
what decides when the infinite set is all accounted for? Could it be
we'll have to rely on the arguments within your theory for that?
Could it also be your theory currently has no better insight of what
it even means than I do...not that can be independently verified or
tested.
So let's recap Bruno...your theory will one day tell us what the
summation of infinities comes to....and presumably also the correct
formulation of the 'local neighbourhood' for a 1:1 comparison. So
your theory will - oneday - perform this calculation.....and so
your theory will assess the results....and then your theory will
announce whether it is falsified or not.
You can surely see that this is a self-referring mess. And do you
know why it's like this? It's because you are trying to define
falsifiability within your theory and tell the world a new
definition based on a process of far-future sequenced events.
Oh sure, I'm the only one that seems to care about this here in this
little goldfish bowl. People here....they like you....they enjoy
your theory.......appreciate what they perceive as your patience and
willingness to engage any person. Listen....I like many of your
qualities too. My intuition with the fullness of time, is that
you've seriously wasted my time by engaging with me about the items
important to me.....it's very clear at no time have you been willing
to re-evaluate your envisionings of falsification, and confront the
very obvious serious questions.
So you've wasted my time.......and fooled yourself the fact no one
else here in this tiny group feels any need to haul you over for any
claims you make.....and largely don't really care that much about
the old fashioned falsifiability thing......all rather passé in the
infinite infinities of infinities of everything infinitely
explained. Sorry...below the belt...no grievance and so on. So
anyway, they let you get away with murder Bruno, and you fool
yourself this is reflects the norm. My questions and concerns are
the norm mate.
I know you'll be coming back saying you don't know what I'm talking
about, and you'll restate your theory is testable...and you'll get
away with it because no one holds you to account for things like
this. But the lone position from me....and as it happens the vast
majority of serious scientists I should think, is that you don't
begin to understand the nature and distinctiveness of
falsifiability, so I'll leave you with a refresher:
1) A precise, non-trivial prediction is fundamental, that tells us
something NEW about physical law....that is to say, goes over and
above offering some new *explanation* of exactly what we already
know. This is the fundamental substance of testability, and
falsifiability.
This Bruno, you never accomplish. You never produce a single non-
trivial prediction from all your work. It does not count to say, you
predict your theory will do great things...it does not count to then
argue that if it doesn't do those great things that would be a
falsification. It does not add any value at all to exchange a
prediction for a process of far future steps. The theorist has no
say how his prediction is tested...he's as welcome as the next
person to make a helpful suggestion.....but the whole end to end
process of testing/observing, is complete outside the theory and the
whimsical arguments of the theorist. And this separation is
fundamental. This is what it's all about.
So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in the
scientific sense.
This can only mean that you did not get the (scientific) point. You
should study the proof, and tell me where you disagree or don't
understand something. Your statement above are too vague and does not
help me to put a finger on your problem.
Are you OK with step 0? Do you understand what are the assumptions?
What is meant by "computationalism". Let us first be sure on this
before proceeding farther. UDA gives a problem, and AUDA solves it,
and provides the entire logic of observable, and it shows the
difference between qualia and quanta, and is testable, etc. You need
of course to do the hard work, to see that AUDA answers the UDA
question.
Bruno
No one calls you on this.....here.....but then again.....let's face
it no one answered my question either. But other there....all you'll
accomplish with this hubris is to be ignored and written off. Which
you probably are, by and large. And...I wanted to add value for
you....for my part I would actually question the way your friends
write you a pass about this, because this is one tiny goldfish bowl
dude.
--
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.
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.
