On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LizR <liz...@gmail.com>
> To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
>
> On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
<everyt...@googlegroups.com
> > wrote:
> So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
> the scientific sense.
Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is
wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its
logic of the observable) and its actual testing?
Because you don't have one.
But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional
physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean
logic, like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people
using the quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable,
and infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more
complex.
If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in
the field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of
the possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the
structure of the computations going through our states
(computational states), and so that logic is determined by the
mental ability of the universal machine. Mathematically, we can
limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) beliefs, like 0+x =
x, etc.
Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work?
Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the
physics of the machines.
Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics
that I do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics
collapse into boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have
been refuted, or show trivial, and QM would have been refuted
altogether, at least as a physical laws. The real physics would be
boolean, and QM would only describe a subpart of it.
Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts
or retrodicts that the observable
have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like
logic. It predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian"
under a symmetry conditions.
It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it,
but that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to
solve to progress. You just need to understand the technics. It is
had, and I have done the best I could. A student and friend of mine,
the late Eric Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics,
which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process. My
interest is in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have
one. But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory.
They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck (or
bad luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is
exactly the quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that.
And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the
origin of the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that
where UDA and machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we
find quantum logic.
If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum
QL, well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more
axioms, and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new
theorems and new physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is
not just the classical knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*)
have axioms inherited from the Löb formula, from which we get
information not available. In their first order arithmetical
extensions, there is an infinities of such information.
Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.....I've
no access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm
concerned a 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and
private. Like fight club geezer...that silly film: what happens on
everything list, stays on everything list. My blood my pledge!
Seriously....I'm always aware arguing with you in this long running
way, of your experiences you shared about psycho stalkers and such
like. Well that ain't me geezer :o) I come from the harder
fraternity of, in the morning "forgive 'em...or kill 'em". Just
kidding obviously, but even if I wasn't...there's definitely
nothing...nothing...that anyone can say or do on a list that
wouldn't qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.....I don't know about
you but I agree with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this
list...or how it looks.....which speaking of killing
people.....you'd have to kill someone here to get a ban from
Russell, so it looks.
Always a risk with you...your French.....you'll not take something
the right way. Do me a favour and get Kim to translate for you if
you've any concerns :O)
No but....I believe in what I believe, and I'm only interested in
you because of the things that I think make us similar or see things
the same way. I might never mention them, and only what I don't
agree...but that's how it works for my little brain to learn. Very
long winded and slow but it's the only way I have. I think you're
right about a lot of things. I think you're wrong about the
falsification thing, but I'm just going to file that now where I
filed the cannabis issue. We've been through it. Time for bed now
that one.
But you don't comment any of my answers. The falsification issue is
factual. You might criticize the translation of the UDA in arithmetic,
but you can't deny that I gave a a clear way to test the final TOE
(the scheme of TOEs) given, and indeed the test that we have been able
to do have not (yet) refute classical computationalism, and do refute
many use of Gödel or QM against computationalism.
As long as you don't answer precise questions (like are you OK with
the FPI and step 3, what about step 7, step 8, ...?), ..., we cannot
progress, not even on what we would be disagreeing. Negative comments
without giving precision are not really helpful. I don't even know if
you are OK with conceiving that the physical reality might be an
emergent reality from non a non physical reality?
Bruno
--
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.
