> > Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean >> that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi >> proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown >> outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the >> pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing >> outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle >> can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, >> the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its >> diameter you get pi. >> >> >> But that proposition is not in the head of anybody. A body can get a >> representation of that proposition in some language (be it LISP or neural >> nets, or numbers): that is usually called a sentence, and *that* is in the >> head of the machine or the number. The proposition itself is what is >> intended by the sentence and the universal machine in presence. That pi is >> what you find by dividing the circle's circumference by the diameter is >> (true by definition), and that the sum of the inverse of all squared >> natural number is true, by a proposition proved by Euler. >> >> That is true. period. It was true before Euler proved it, and after, >> although this is only a metaphor. The number are just not concept to which >> time or space attribute can apply. >> >> There is no number, nor proposition, in a brain. You might find >> representations of number, and of propositions in the brain, but it makes >> no sense to say that a number is in a brain, or on the planet mars. >> >> Then a brain itself can be described as the representation of a universal >> numbers with respect to some other universal numbers. >> >> If you accept Church-Turing thesis, all computations exists in the >> elementary arithmetical reality, and in a very special redundant way, and >> we are there, and we must explain why the white rabbits are so rare and why >> the rabbit hole is so deep. The quantum almost solves that problem, but to >> solve the mind-body problem, we must justify why only the quantum works. >> >> Bruno >> > > Roger: I understand that the sentence, the words and the thought "divide a > circle's circumference by its diameter to get pi" are in the mind/head. > > > Yes. even in the mind/head of all universal machine, in the sense of > Turing-Church, which can be defined in arithmetic. > > But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a > diameter. > > > This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the "platonic perfect circle"? Or > about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and a compass? >
Roger: A physically realized circle. There is no process outside the mind/head saying that if you divide the circumference by the diameter, the number 3.14... results. > > > Yes there is. For each choice of a universal numbers in N, you will have > an infinity of numbers which describes that process, like all programs > simulating Archimedes algorithm to compute Pi. Those programs and their > executions are entirely well defined in arithmetic. Some quite indirectly, > like the programs simulating the milky way, in string theory, just before > Archimedes discovered his algorithm. > > > > > > That process and the idea of even doing it are inside the mind/head. > > > But with computationalism everything is inside the mind/ead of the > universal numbers, even the idea that there is something outside the > mind/head of the universal machine. > Roger: If you believe in computationalism and arithmetical reality. > It will give 3.14 for all physical circles and their circumferences and > diameters outside the head, but the only thing outside the head is the > circle. > > > The platonic circle? Perhaps. > Roger: As above, a physically realized circle. > The process and the idea are inside the mind/head. > > > There are also in arithmetic, and in the mind/head of all universal > numbers, although they can focus on something else. > > > > The "what you find by dividing..." in your sentence also kind of implies > that an action needs to be taken by the observer. > > > OK, but the observer is defined by a relative number, or a couple of > universal numbers. We never go outside a tiny fragment of arithmetic, > except for the reasoning on the measure on the computational histories, > where analytical tools are not forbidden at the metalevel. > > Keep in mind that I do not assume a physical universe, if only because I > want a non circular explanation of matter and of the physical. > > Everett use computationalism to justify the absence of collapse, but this > works only if we can derive the SWE from the measure on *all* computational > "dreams" in arithmetic. > > Bruno > Roger: It just seems like we're starting out with different assumptions (arithmetical reality/computationalism versus physically existent entities), and I don't think we can resolve that one. But, that's okay. As I mentioned before, we'll all keep working our models and try and make some progress. > > -- 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.
