On 27 Dec 2016, at 21:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics
is derived from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I
derived formally a quantum logic, and explained informally how we
get the statistical interference.
A derivation using dozens of pronouns that either have no clear
referent or are logically contradictory. But I believe we may have
been through this before.
> the Aristotelian theology fails.
To hell with the ancient Greeks!
Come on. You are the one sticking with the theology of an ancient
greek. You accept only his (defeoremd by other) conception of God, and
you invoke often his seocnd God, primary matter to qualify things as
real.
> God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause,
The primary cause may be attached to the word "God", but we
both know that is not the only attachment, so is "a being who can
think".
That is exactly what the greeks put in question. Plotinus examine that
question and just admit that he cannot solve it, and illustrate the
difficulty of both alternatives. And Aristotle does not attribute
thinking to neither its first god and the second. Similarly, the
question of knowing if the set of true arithmetical sentence thinks is
also not an obvious one. There is a simple sense in which that set
knows a lot of things, like the solution of Riemann hypothesis,
Goldbach conjecture, etc.
> which is the god of the platonist.
To hell with the ancient Greeks!
>You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it
has not.
You talk as if theologians have solved the problem, but they have
not.
> (either Plato's God, or even Pythagoras" God
To hell with the ancient Greeks!
> In theology, the greeks were
To hell with the ancient Greeks!
> Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called
God), the second God of Aristotle. (Primary Matter), the god of
Plato (first principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural
numbers).
OK I won't confuse it, and I'll avoid confusion by ignoring
both. To hell with the ancient Greeks!
Which greeks. the departure started with Plato and Aristotle. I am ok
with the hell to Aristotle, but then what remains is Plato.
I recall you, in a short and simple way to avoid jargon.
Aristotle: god or reality = the physical universe = what we see,
measure, test, etc. Aristote = materialism/naturalism/physicalism
Plato: god or reality = the mind universe : the ideas, the dreams,
perhaps the numbers. It lean from abstract theologicalism to
mathematicalism and to arithmeticalism, or finite-combinatorialisme.
I don't know who is right, but I show that when we assume digital
mechanism, Plato's theory get a testable theory of matter, at a place
where the aristotelians must add metaphysical and non Turing emulable
assumptions.
> two beers in the fridge is not rsponsible for the numbers 2
to exist physically, and here
If there were nobody around to think about the number 2 and if
there were not 2 of anything in the entire physical universe, then
would the number 2 exist? And if it did, how would things be
different if it didn't?
> you beg the question by assuming the second god of Aristotle.
To hell with the ancient Greeks!
I understand. You want keep Aristotle so much that you prefer not to
learn anything about Plato. You do not want the alternative ways to
conceive the mind-body relations. But then you act like a
fundamentalist.
> It is the favorite gods of the catholics.
I'll say this for the catholics, their view of God is clear,
clearly wrong but clear nevertheless. Your view of God isn't even
wrong.
I think you confuse fundamentalist christian and educated christian,
which is about the difference between those having not read the greeks
and those having read the greeks. The best one, with respect to
computationalism, read and grasp Plato, ... to be quickly burnt on the
stake.
> The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations
And all correct computations need matter that obeys the laws
of physics.
That is simply wrong. The notion of computation does not refer to any
laws in physics. In metaphysics/theology, the "Turing machine" notion
is a bit misleading, so read the account by Church and by Post, or
read any serious textbook on the subject.
It is that very fact which makes me choose to be a mathematician,
instead of biologist.chemist/physicist, given my interest in the mind-
body problem.
The fact that the physical reality is Turing universal, and in many
ways, is an interesting idea in physics, but it borrows the notion of
computation to the logician's one, which is known to be arithmetical,
indeed, even equational with diophantine polynomial.
Here you really miss the very notion of computations. You completely
miss the real bomb: Church's thesis.
> Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.
Well you sure as hell better be interested in incorrect
calculations if you want to avoid them! So I ask yet again , how can
you, how can even God separate correct numerical relations from
incorrect ones without the help of matter that obeys the laws of
physics? You can't do it I can't do it and God can't do it.
If you were willing to study the basic standard definition of
computation, you would see that the logicians have refuted what you
say here long ago.
It is done in all textbooks on computability theory, or recursion
theory. Buy the Dover book by Martin Davis, read up to Chapter 4, and
its appendice on Hlibert problem.
You don't need to go through all details though, but some amount of
work needs to be done before understanding a tiny part of elementary
arithmetic emulates all programs in virtue of true (some provable,
some not always provable by the programs) relationships between
natural integers.
You will not find one mathematician who disagree with this, and most
physicists agree too, to my knowledge.
> With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness,
Everybody has a theory on consciousness
Do you read the literature? There are partial theories, but they use
the computationalist idea, and ignore the metaphysical problem, and
usually the whole of computer science.
and none of them are worth a damn, I'd be much more interested in a
theory of intelligence.
But as you said consciousness is easy, so let us first solve the easy
problem. For a theory of intelligence read the paper By Blum, case
and Smith, oherson-stob-weinstein, mentionned in my url, or ask the
reference. But the theory of intelligence are mainly negative, it
shows only that intelligence grows non computably when you allow
machine to make mistake, to change their mind, to make inconsistent
hypotheses, to work in team, etc. It can be proved, with simple
general notion of explanation, extrapolation, inductive inference,
that the theory is necessarily not constructive. There are no
algorithm, but there are variate sequences, with jumps, toward that
goal. (logicians use usually "competence" for what you call
"intelligence").
>> God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.
> That shows only how much you take for granted the
brainwashing of the clericals.
Well, I may be brainwashed but according to you I'm smarter
than God because I can think and God can't.
I have said nothing. See above. The set of true arithmetical
propositions (well definable in analysis) does think in the sense that
it is closed for the boolean common "law of thought". If A is true and
B is true, then (A & B) is true, etc.
It all depends on what you call thinking, and in any case, nobody
could say today if the arithmetical truth has or not some form of
consciousness. If plotinus theology is correct, probably not.
Bruno
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
