On 07 Apr 2017, at 22:57, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> You tell me you don't read book on theology,
For over a decade I was required to read books on theology, I've
probably read more than you,
Good news! Which one? It is a very vast literature.
and not one was worth a bucket of warm spit,
Not even Smullyan's "The Tao is Silent"?. Did you read his "Who
knows?" Well Smullyan did not hide his interest in theological
question, and I urge you to read the book by Daniel J. Cohen which
explains unintentionally (I think) how theology and mathematical logic
are deeply related. Gödel also, and in fact many logiciens are
motivated by trying to be rigorous in the field of metaphysics/theology.
>> If arithmetic "works very well" why do physicists bother
to do experiments
> Because it is still infinitely more efficacious.
Then arithmetic doesn't work "very well" although I agree that to
figure out why a apple pie must exist arithmetic would take a
INFINITE (at least) number of calculations.
Good. Indeed. If only by the first person indeterminacy on the
universal dovetailing, which called for random oracle, if not infinite
random matrices.
But by itself arithmetic can't even calculate 2+2, it needs a mind
to do anything.
It depends of course of your basic assumptions. If by arithmetic you
mean the arithmetical truth or "reality", then the relation 2+2=4 is
just true, without the need of any proof. Logicians would say that
"2+2=4" is satisfied by the standard model of arithmetic (and actually
by all models of PA). Note that such models will satisfy also
proposition like "It is exists a proof from PA of 2+2=4" and "It
exists a LISP program which gives the result of a computation by a
Fortran program of the addition of 2 and 2", and it exist a
10^(10^100) quantum complex rational matrices emulating emulating X"
with X an accurate description of the Milcky way. It exists,
independently of us being able to verify it, which is irrelevant for
the creature who brain are emulated by it. And note that if such an
existence is trivial, why it *seems* to win in the limit is the
complex mathematical problem for which the modal logics of self-
reference are used to put light on.
And a mind needs a brain.
It needs an infinity of computations. The brain is only a local map of
the locally accessible computational continuation.
And a brain needs matter that obeys the laws of physics.
This explanation becomes circular, if invoked in the course of solving
the mind-body problem. Matter, or the "wave" is only a sort of map of
the neighborhoods. Of course this is in need to be etsted, but it
recovers already a large part of the quantum formalism, including its
"many-worlds" appearances. of course it is "only" all he computable
relatively to the uncomputable, a concept made clear by two whole
branches of theoretical computer science: recursion theory and
provability theory.
> Keep in mind the goal: to solve the mind-body problem (in the
computationalist frame).
That's far too ambitious for now, first you've got to explain
exactly what the "mind-body problem" is and what sort of answer
would cause you to say "the mind body problem is now solved".
? (That is what my papers are all about). I don't solve the mind body
problem, I show only that IF computationalism is true, THEN the mind -
body problem is reduced to a derivation of physics from arithmetic,
through measure defined by self-reference relatively to all true or
false sigma_1 sentences, and where we need a quantum probability, we
get the right algebraical structure, but it is still open if we get
the right measure (yet we can already make some comparison, and up to
now, it works).
If somebody found that X caused mind would that satisfy you or would
you then ask "why does X cause mind?". Of course you would.
With computationalism, we don't really have a problem with the mind,
we just listen directly to what the machine says or can say, and
mathematical logic provides excellent tools for this (like G and G*
for example).
The problem is in deriving the specific appearances of matter, i.e.
the appearance time energy, mass, waves, particles, ...
The tehory of mind is "easy". It has two parts:
- 1) What universal numbers can prove about themselves and possible
relations with others (science)
- 2) What is true about the universal numbers, but is such that they
cannot prove it (theology). (That exists by incompleteness).
>> I think it would be closer to the truth to say the laws
of logic assume the laws of physics not the other way around.
> This is non sense. "laws" assumes logic.
And we like to make assumption that work. And what tells us if
they work or not? Observations of the physical world.
That does not work. We might be dreaming. To use observation as a
criterion of truth is the "aristotelian act of faith". You forget
that the "physical world" is an assumption, and if you posit it at the
start, you will only see the evidences for it, a bit like creationist
who start from their belief, and counts only the confirmation. The
whole point is that once you assume computationalism, this simply stop
to work (but you need to get quite beyond step 3 to appreciate this, I
don't insist).
The observation is quite important, and can make some theory quite
unplausible, but it is not the criterion of truth, which for a
platonist is a more subtle feeling of simplicity and rationality.
And what determines the observations of the physical world? The
laws of physics.
Assuming non-computationalism. That's OK. I am not sure if your theory
(in metaphysics) is testable.
If you assume computationalism, invoking a primary metaphysical
physical universe is like invoking a God to make a selection of a term
of the wave. You need Turing machine with paranormal ability to
distinguish a reality made real by some God, and a computation which
exist in the arithmetical sense (available by the explicit use of
Church thesis).
>> If the laws of physics were different and whenever 2 rocks
(or 2 of anything) were brought to our attention and then 2 more
rocks were brought to our attention then a extra rock always popped
into existence then the laws of both logic and arithmetic that
humans devised would be quite different from what we have today.
Everyone would say it's intuitively obvious that 2+2=5.
You confuse [...]
Somebody who thinks God is a good synonym for arithmetic is in no
position to call anyone confused.
God is certainly not a synomiym of arithmetic. By definition God is
the realizer of everything consistent, and arithmetic is just a tiny
(but key) corner of mathematics.
What happens is that in the context of the computationalist
hypothesis, the Arithmetical Truth (a highly non computable set of
(Gödel) numbers) obeys to the often accepted definition of "God": what
explains or justfies all the appearances (except the numbers).
You are the one coming apparently with a conviction, or ontological
commitment. You believe that there is something more than arithmetic,
but with computationalism, you need to endow your ontology with
magical abilities to interfere with the arithmetical reality.
> like in your preceding post, logic and arithmetic.
Like hell I do! If our logic said X and Y never made Z but we when
observe the physical world we see that X and Y always made Z people
would not say the physical world had made a mistake, instead we'd
say our logic must be wrong and we'd change it to something that
worked.
We agreed on this. I was just saying that you were confusing logic and
arithmetic.
>> arithmetic can't derive the laws of physics nor can it
derive a mind, it can't even figure out how much 2+2 is without the
help of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> In which theory , with what assumptions?
What a remarkably silly thing to say! If I walk over that
bridge will it fall down? It depends on what theory you're
using and what assumptions you're thinking about. Dumb.
OK.
But only because in this post you make clear that you assume a
physical universe. The point is that if such a physical universe has
any relation with my consciousness (or anyone else) has a relation
with that physical universe, you need a magic, non Turing emulable,
and non Turing first person recoverable, mean for that universe to
interfere with the computations in arithmetic and say hello to the
machines.
> Then why use also the sense of the word given by those who
have systematically banish or burn alive anyone doing personal
research or harboring some doubts on some dogma.
Why are (strong) atheists so much defending the God theory of those
who imposed it by violence. Why continue the violence?
Wow. Mindless rhetoric in hyperdrive I see.
On the contrary. It is a real question which I ask myself each time
(and it happens many times) a strong atheist defends the conception of
theology of those who have burn alive anyone proposing a different
conception? Why strong atheists behave like if they were the guardian
of the clerical orthodoxy? Why did they help the clergy in dismissing
critics, questions, reason and rationality in the domain?
Only bad faith fears reason.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
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.
