On 19 Oct 2015, at 05:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 18/10/2015 8:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2015, at 04:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
> wrote:
Two different meanings of the word 'exist'. Physical existence
relates to physical objects; mathematical 'existence' relates to
mathematical ideas.
If you think these are the same thing, then show me the conscious
being that exists independently of any physical substrate. The
fact that you appear unable to do this, and no-one else has ever
done it either, is overwhelming evidence that no such non-
physical conscious beings exist.
Until you can point to a difference that makes a difference,
between physical existence and mathematical existence, and no-one
else has ever done it either, I see no reason to accept that
"physical existence" is somehow more special, or more capable
than mathematical existence.
That particular difference does make a difference. Physical
existence refers to objects of the physical world: mathematical
'existence' refers to mathematical ideas that 'exist' only in
Patonia. Such platonic objects cannot be touched, kicked, or
otherwise manipulated except insofar as physical objects might be
taken to resemble them. If a calculation in platonia can produce
consciousness, then show me the conscious being that is
independent of any physical substrate.
I will allow you to provide the necessary interface between the
platonic and the physical, so that that conscious being can
communicate with us mere mortals. Such an interface must be
possible in your theory (though not in mine) because you claim
that the physical is produced by the platonic objects.
To say that the physical is produced by the platonic object is an
aristotelian, and a bit straw-man, way to sum up.
But that is what you say. And you have said it many times.
I have said it 0 times. On the contrary I insist that neither
consciousness, nor matter is ever produced by anything definable,
still less emulable, in arithmetic, and proved it.
Even for the artifical digital brain, I insist that it does not
produce or create consciousness. Consciousness and matter is in
platonia (or more exactly on its limiting FPI border), and what comp
assumes is that a computer can make it possible for that consciousness
to manifest itself relatively to my actual environment.
It is more correct to say that there is no production of the
physical, but an experience of it, sharable by many universal
numbers relatively emulated by other universal numbers. that
experience of physical realities, emerges from the first person
indeterminacy by the subjects which are emulated infinitely often
in the arithmetical reality, for which you can take the usual (N,
+, *) structure (used when you defined most concept in the
mathematics used in physics). If that mathematics was not real/
kicking-back, physicists would not use them.
You say that conscious beings are emulated infinitely often in
arithmetic.
I allow myself to make short sentences for not boring too much those
who have studied the UDA. What I mean exactly is that arithmetic
emulated the computations which can make those conscious person able
to manifest themselves. Consciousness needs the computations + the
relative right measure, and that measure is not emulable.
Consciousness is a first person notion. It is just a shorthand to talk
about an emulation of consciousness. It means emulation of a
computation, on which you can associate a consciousness, in a normal
computations (which has the relative measure "one").
It is strange that all such conscious objects that have ever been
observed subsist on a physical substrate -- the evidence is always
that consciousness supervenes on the physical.
Comp explains the appearance of this, but refute it in general. It is
only needed for "relatively implemented person". It is open for
dissociated conscious state, and if our level is not the entire
physical universe, that should exist.
Just as physical beings that are conscious are emulated infinitely
often in arithmetic, then so also are conscious beings who are not
physical, but who can interface to the physical world we inhabit --
through disembodied voices, spirit writing, interfacing to the
internet and sending emails -- in an infinity of different ways, in
fact. So if these beings are emulated in arithmetic just as often as
embodied physical beings are, why do we not commonly encounter such
beings?
Because we live in a physical universe, and to implement a non
physical being, you need to use the physical stuff accessible
relatively to us. Comp explains why the laws of physics are
constrained in that way. The explanation is not obvious at all, it
relies specifically of the logic of self-reference. looking inward,
for a universal machine, is not a trivial notion, but logicians have
made giants steps last century.
As has been said before, your account of existence does not explain
our experience, since it does not explain why we do not see these
things, as we should,
The exact contrary. Please study the theory. UDA seems to implies
"white rabbits", and the translation in math refute that "simple
refutation of comp" by showing that the logic of the observable is
highly constrained, in a way which already looks like the quantum
calculus.
if consciousness is more fundamental than the physical. Science must
go by the evidence, and the evidence is all against you.
Not at all. Both Gödel's theorem and QM are evidences for
computationalism, and the counter-intuitive platonist idea that the
physical reality is the border of the universal mind of the Turing
universal machine.
Advantage? The theory of everything is crazily simple, already
known by everyone having the primary school diploma, and, and that
is the key point, it solves the mind-body problem. Not only person
are not eliminated, but that notion is the building block to get
both consciousness and matter. It provides also a rational
explanation of the mystical discourse, notably by providing a
transparent interpretation of the neopythagorean and neoplatonist
accounts of God, Intellect, Soul, and Matter. And up to now, it
fits the data, and explain also the quantum weirdness, which
becomes the norm in that computationalist theory.
You have not solved the mind-body problem because you have not
explained why we do not observe disembodied minds.
Disembodied mind, or number, are not observable, but we use them all
the time. When I send you a mail, I send you a disembodied
information, through a succession of embodiement (hard disk, ram
memory, electromagnetc waves, etc.).
But what UDA showsn is that physicalism or (weak) materialism not only
fails, but prevents the computationalist theory to work, for both
mind and matter, not talking about their relations, which becomes
magical.
You have not explained quantum mechanics -- that is your standard
'dog = cat' argument. You notice a superficial similarity and then
claim identity.
Eve,n if QM is completely false, the logic S4Grz1, X1¨, Z1* describe
the physics of the machine. I don't claim identity, I test them, and
until now, it fits with the facts. So it is the only known theory
which is believed by almost every scientists, and which explains
matter and mind up to one condition: dropping the Aristotelian
assumption of primitive matter.
Science requires you to do a bit better than this.
But it is clear that you have studied neither the mind-body problem,
where the consensus is that it is not solved, notably in the
materialist framework, nor computationalism, nor theoretical computer
science, so you are judging only with respect to your religious or
theological belief in Matter.
UDA exposes the problem, and AUDA shows that were we could expect a
contradiction: inflation of white rabbits in the global FPI, we get
the quantum quantization. This constitutes the first explanation of
the quantum which does not assume analysis, nor time, nor anything
physical. The TOE assumes just the addition and multiplication of the
natural numbers (or anything recursively equivalent), which are
already assule by physicists, in the exact sense of what I assume.
Then you can improve it by solving the open problems, instead of
assuming a God (the second God of Aristotle, primary Matter) to hide
the problem (which a priori does not belong to the physicist agenda).
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.
