On 09 Jun 2017, at 18:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. Of course, it can "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuinerandom bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum computer, you need toemulate the duplication of the observer, like in the WM duplication.Well ok, but this part is easy to solve on a classical computer: https://www.random.org/ :) Using atmospheric noise as an oracle.OK, it is better than than using PI or sqrt(2), but is really a computer with an oracle (which by the way has the same theology than a computerwithout oracle, but this is just a note in passing).On the other hand (and I think Russell said it before here), I am convinced that randomness plays a role in creativity, and there is some evidence from the evolutionary computation community that true randomness is better than pseudo-random generators for this purpose.It is a complex issue. From the strict theoretical view, it can be proved that the class of problem solvable by a machine using a "true" random oracleis bigger than with any pseudo-random oracle. But the proof I saw issecond-recursion ironical, which means that we need to go in Heaven toreally solve those problem.If you can find the reference, I would like to take a look.
KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and Control, 57, pp. 40-47.
That can play a role in the derivation of physics, though, as the UD* introduce a random oracle in physics. It might be the usual quantum indeterminacy.This random oracle would come from FPI, correct?
Yes. Of course UD* is not "pure random oracle", as the FPI is structured by the first person pov on the leaves of UD*. But it contains it. That makes it very different from the white noise of the "pure" iteration of the self-duplication.
Best, Bruno
Now, prove me that random.org really use the oracle. May be it uses Pi or1/Pi. Not sure we could see the difference, if they change the seed regularly.There is an independent master thesis on this, but I'm not willing to read more than 100 pages on the subject and take their word for it :)It cannot be proved, of course, but there are statistical methods tomeasure the "quality" of random numbers. Overall, I believe random.orgpasses several independent tests as is well-regarded.Oh, it is cute for sure. I did need some energy to sop generating randomnumber ...:)Well, thanks for letting me know that you are not serious :)I was not :)But if you want real randomness and do not trust a third party, thereare other options: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generatorYou really seems to want me to become an addict! :)Sorry! But I understand, I love random numbers too.but with comp it would have consequences regarding our "insertion" in reality, so to say. Correct?I am not sure of what you mean exactly. It would not change the physics,but allow us to exploit more directly the FPI. Yes, I meant simply that our mind would supervene on more branches.And we would become able to compute Fourier transform on the result ofsomecomputations made in all branches. According to Deustch we would be abletodetect the "parallel universes". We would be able to find quickly aneedle in a stack, and I would have less problem to find my glasses on my dekstop :):)I am completely agnostic on this,but I am not convince by the current argument that there are evidencesthata brain could be a quantum computer. They might be right, but I wait formore evidences. Me too.Elementary arithmetic is full of quantum computing machineries. I evensuspect that the prime number distribution encodes a universal quantumchaotic dovetailing, Can you explain what you mean by chaotic dovetailing? Have you heard about quantum chaos? No, interesting. I'm starting to read about it. I always lovedstandard chaos theory. It was one of the first things that profoundlychanged my map of reality. A not to bad intro is"http://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/27151/excerpt/9780521027151_excerpt.pdf "Thanks!OK.Here I meant classical usual dovetailing on the classical emulation of quantum chaos. From the FPI, it can convergeon "genuine" quantum chaos. There are some evidences, related to theRiemann hypothesis that the "spectrum" or he critical zero of zeta might correspondto some quantum chaoitic hamiltonian's eigenvalue. I read that a longtime ago. If quantum chaos is Turing universal, it could even be quantum-Turinguniversal, and generate a quantum universal dovetailer. But that wouldnotsolve the mind-body problem. The machine-theological solution can workonly if we can explain why the measure which would be associated to thatparticular quantum chaos win the arithmetical (classical, mechanist) FPIproblem. The Rieman hypothesis would help but is far from sufficiant.I am too ignorant on number theory to understand this.I might say some words on this when I have more time, but I will resistfor now. but even if that is true, that should not be used tojustify physics, because we would get the quanta, and not the qualia(unless the Riemann hypothesis is shown undecidable in PA (and thus true!).Only Penrose asks for an explicit non computable physical reduction ofthe waves, with some role for gravity, and is authenticallynon-computationalist. Penrose is coherent with computationalism. He keepphysics as fundamental, but accept the price: the abandon of mechanism.Buthis argument aganist mechanism is not valid, and already defeated bymachines like PA, ZF, etc. You mean is maligned statement that the human brain is capable of accessing truths that lie beyond the Gödelian veil?I mean all Löbian machine are capable of accessing truths that lie to theGödelian veil, and use this to refute Penrose. Already in 1931, Gödelrealized that PA (or equivalently his own theory P) was proving its ownGödel's second incompleteness theorem, and is perfectly able to sort outhisown undecidable proposition. Gödel's proof is constructive. It limits theformalism, but shows them how to improve themselves accordingly, leadingto transfinite possible self-improvement. The machine can find its undecidablestatement, and bet on them with the interrogation mark, or discuss themas mysteries (consciousness). And what leads to machine to drop the interrogation mark?The confusion between two hypostases. Either willingly, to make easyprofit, like with the clergy, which can confuse man and god for example, orunwillingly, by repeating lies, or by pure ignorance. You can see themachine's enlightenment as the realization that G1* proves the equivalence of all hypostases:G1* proves p <-> Bp <-> (Bp & p) <-> (Bp & Dt) <-> (Bp & Dt & p)(p is restricted to the sigma propositions, the leaves of the UD).But all those equivalence are solution of the formula B x -> ~x. It istrueonly in God's eye, and false on the terrestrial plane. G1 does not proveanyof those equivalence, with some exception, like p -> Bp (keep in mindthat true sigma proposition are always provable by a universal system). Of course, they cannot prove them, nor evenassert them as new axiom, but they can understand them, and use them,notably by becoming "mystical" and "religious", And artists too, I would say...And poets. Certainly (as long as they do not believe doing science in theprocess). and distinguishing *their* science from *their* religion, in the scientific way, like they can developthe non-monotonical layers of mind on which Gödel's incompleteness willnot apply: they need only to be able to say something like "Oops, I was wrong", which is the beginning of the manifestation of intelligence/doubt (already present in the Löb formula).What can one base such bets on? It seems to me that most "betting" is more or less a Bayesian process, based on priors that are fine- tunedthroughout life in an endless process.I feel myself more frequentist than Bayesian. Bayes works when we havegoodreason to have the indifference principle true, but that tend to existonly in mathematics.Humm... but the principle of indifference can be used to bootstrap an iterative process, where the prior is better approximated as new databecomes available. I would not be surprised if our brain does that a lot.Interesting. I have not much clues on this. In many real-life situation, I am skeptical on prior, but that does not mean that there are not situationwhere it does make sense.For example, I suspect that themain difference between adherents of different ideologies is that theyhave different priors for questions such as ("how likely is one tobecome rich while being ethical"; "how likely is the government to be corrupt"; etc.). How does one estimate probabilities beyond the veil?I would say that there are no probabilities at all in such context, onlycredibilities and plausibilities.I will judge a government corrupt when he lies on something for a longtime,or make dubious propositions. It will be a personal judgment, unless Ican rove that it lies on something specific.Ok, but you think it's a lie for some reason. Couldn't that come fromother probabilities that you estimate?By default, the normal gaussian on almost all physical or concrete measurements, yes.Ok. Best, Telmo. --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.