On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block
universe certain structure was necessary --
Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in the sense that all you
need is the emulation of a brain of a person believing in time, and
those exists all in the block mindscape constituted in a tiny part
of arithmetic.
No, it is not false. Even with comp. If the block universe is to
have an inherent time dimension, than that structure is essential,
whether it comes from primitive materialism or from comp, it cannot
be avoided. If for no other reason than that is what we see when we
look around us.
I agree, if the block universe is to have an inherent time dimension.
In that case it would have to follow from computationalism.
we need a 4-dim manifold with a local Lorentzian metric, and
physical events must be arranged with a particular structure on
this manifold -- they cannot just be arranged at haphazard. So the
way events are embedded is in fact crucial.
Yes, but that occurs easily, as we need only the brain emulation.
The problem is that we get too much aberrant dreams, and thus an
inflation of possibilities. But the math parts shows that self-
reference put the eaxct constraints required to have a measure on
the consistent continuations, even a quantum one.
So then why do we get too many aberrant dreams? You contradict
yourself. If the necessary structure drops out easily from comp,
then show it, and show why we see what we see and not the white
rabbits.
But that is what I have done. It *is* the entire subject of my
enterprise. To show that at first sight comp looks crazy, with an
inflation of dreams, and then to show that the theoretical computer
science constraints are enough to put a structure giving sense to the
normal measure. This means that comp does explain, today, both
consciousness (A large part of it), and matter, as a stable appearance.
Now, it would be astonishing that the first machine interview get the
physics right, but u to now, it works. Not for "doing" physics (that
has never been the goal), but for explaining where physics come from,
in frame where consciousness is not eliminated.
The question is then whether this 4 dimensional manifold with a
local Lorentzian metric exists in arithmetic?
It does not have to exist in arithmetic, it needs to be recoverable
from the FPI in arithmetic.
Is there a difference?
There might be. We just cannot equate those things by decision.
It might exist in arithmetic, and not have the right measure. it
might also not exist in arithmetic, but recoverable from the FPI.
or both case can be true: it exists in arithmetic, and is
recoverable from the FPI. In that case the measure would be
computable, and I doubt this is possible, but fundamentally, it is
an open problem. of course, approximation of it exists in
arithmetic. Arithmetic contains all simulations of all physical
phenomena, with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 100^100, ... decimals exact.
In other words, you don't have a clue either.
?
I am the one formulating the problem. Making it mathematical. Then the
clues toward the solution is the object of the second part of the
sane04 paper (or other papers, or the thesis).
If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic
per se, and consequently nothing can 'emerge' from arithmetic,
since emergence is a temporal concept.
We need only the "dital time" to get the digital brain emulation,
to get the arithmetical mindscape. If a physical time emerges or
not remains to be seen. Note that S4Grz1 and X1* logic already
brought a subjective time.
If you don't get physical time, then your theory is a failure.
Only if you have a proof of the existence of time.
Then your theory is known to be a failure on consciousness, souls,
intelligence, etc.
And my theory is believed by everyone, if not by default most of the
time. the negation of comp needs actual infnities, of very special
sorts. That theory does not yet even exists. Evolution theory,
molecular biology, quantum computing, all that relies on
computationalism.
I am not of the type of proposing new theories. I show that comp leads
to a curious view of reality, but that up to now, Physics confirms it,
including in its most weird aspect.
Those are results. Unless you find a flaw, you have to deal with them.
Getting subjective or mental time is not enough, since clocks do not
run according to our subjective impression of the passage of time.
Nor does the best clock ever: 0, 1, 2, 3, ....
Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that
can be described mathematically and the structure of arithmetic or
mathematics themselves.
Yes. Quite important. Even after the reversal, although physics is
made purely arithmetical, it is only through machine's psychology
and theology that this happens, and the science physics are
explained to be different from the mathematical science. For
example mathematical (arithmetical) existence is some thing like
ExP(x), but physical existence is [2]<2>Ex [2]<2>P(x). Physics
remains untouched by comp., except it is put on logico-arithmetical
grounds. What change is physicalism in metaphysics. It becomes
testable, and false if comp is true.
But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations.
What?
Reference?
You mean the brain is not Turing emulable?
Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of your brain can be
emulated by a computer does not entail that consciousness is only a
computation.
Consciousness is not a computation, when we assume computationalism.
Nor does it entail that only computations can be conscious.
A computation cannot be conscious. Only a (first) person can be
conscious.
It is a category error to believe that something 1p can be identified
with some 3p thing.
In fact, it is quite difficult to come up with a definition of
computation such that only computers and brains perform
computations. The structure of a Turing machine can be emulated by a
rock, for instance.
With toilet papers, and pebbles, yes. You still need to play the role
of the processor. Now, a rock does not emulate an arbitrary turing
machine. With comp, rock are not even object, but map of accessible
continuations.
I expose only the mind body problem, and show that the machine's
solution fits QM and neoplatonism. I don't defend any truth or
religion, just the right to do those things with some rigor.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
