> On 17 Jun 2019, at 01:39, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The problem with "all is arithmetic/numbers" and a "all is > qualia/consciousness" is that while we know we have a "self" (our > self-experience of consciousness) and may even believe in (the fiction) > mathematics, we are in a world where we see the science news* of materials > science -- where some scientists/technologists find some really fricking > weird property of some exotic material. So there is all this weird stuff we > find out about new materials, to say nothing of stuff we don't know about, > like dark matter. (As Auden said, "Matter is much / Odder than we thought.") > > If there isn't some sort of "independent" material world (which we are > embedded in), then where does these surprising material properties come from? > Do we just dream them up as we dream up matter itself, or they come out of > Peano arithmetic?
Of course I don’t know the truth, but the evidence is that they come up from the arithmetical reality, is is reflected in all universal numbers. It is not really like a REM, nocturnal dream, it is the coherence condition on infinitely many dreams. That is due to what is explained in the second step of the Universal Dovetailer Argument: the independence of the first person experience of the “time”, or the number of steps, used by a universal machine to silmulate the person. That is why the first person indeterminacy is on the limit of the consciousness flux which originate for all universal number when they are run at the basic level (which is fixed by the choice of Ione staring Turing universal/complete ontology (I use elementary arithmetic, or elementary combinators, but any sigma_1 complete system would do). The ontology is not trivial, but still very simple. The interesting things, like physics and theology are phenomenological, and not always computable, nor even definable, except by using the notion of truth, as concept, or as Oracle. The surprising appearance of matter and laws is explained by the surpassing richness intrinsic to all universal numbers, and the fact that incompleteness imposes special logic for the “observable” variant of self-reference. To observe is manly to test for the truth of some sigma_1 proposition, in a context where some self-consistency is “assumed”. We get the logic of the observable in that way ([]p & <>t, and []p & <>t & p) with p sigma_1. Mechanism provides a way to refute all reductionism, and indeed a universal Löbian machine, which knows that she is universal, is a universal dissident: it refutes all complete and effective theories about itself. It knows that it has a soul, and that this soul is not a machine, nor even definable but still experienceable and immediately knowable. Matter? It is a non trivial invariant for all universal numbers. A stable pattern on all its consistent extensions, symmetrical so that a fact remains a fact, and can be shared with other. Why the standard model? Because of the properties of the number 3, 8, or 4, and 6, and 24, but I steal that to the physicists. Normally I must deduce this from G and G*. Bruno > > * https://news.google.com/search?q=materials%20science > <https://news.google.com/search?q=materials%20science&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen> > > @philipthrift > > On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:50:12 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > Whether the universe, is just a set of numbers, or it's reality as has been > conventionally described, a dream within a dream, I still want the the fix to > be in for our specie. If it's material, immaterial, or a mix, or something > else, we should endeavor to make existence better. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > To: everything-list <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Sent: Sun, Jun 16, 2019 6:39 pm > Subject: Re: The anecdote of Moon landing > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 7:19 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> I give metaphysics all the respect it deserves. > > > If you did, you would more clearly make precise that you assume a physical > > reality. > > I could understand what you mean by "physical reality" if you could just > answer the following question. If there was a physical reality how would > things be different from if there was not a physical reality? > > > if we assume Mechanism, then such a physical reality has no sense. > > Perhaps so I don't know because I don't know what "Mechanism" or "physical > reality" means in Brunospeak. You say a clock is not an example of a > mechanism but a textbook on computer science is. You say the ASCII sequence > "SKK" is not a example if a mechanism but the ASCII sequence SKK is If a > clock isn't a mechanism then a car isn't one either and mechanics don't work > on machines. > > > The belief in a God or in a Universe is logically incompatible with the > > assumption of Mechanism. > > Over the years I have managed to learn a few words of Brunospeak and in that > language "God" means a grey amorphous blob of unspecified size that need not > be intelligent or conscious; it's hard to see how that could be logically > incompatible with much of anything. It's even harder to understand how > something as dull as that could be of interest to anyone or anything. > > > Mechanism is the assumption that we can survive a digital brain transplant > > operation copying, > > OK, at last you've said something that is clear! By that definition I am a > firm believer in mechanism except that assumptions were not involved. I know > for a fact it is true because I know for a fact I have survived from the day > I was born to today, and every day since I was born I have been undergoing a > brain transplant operation, atoms are constantly shifting out of my brain and > new atoms shifting in to replace them. My brain is made out of last year's > mashed potatoes. > > > you mean no examples of “a mechanism”? I gave infinitely many of them, all > > the “i” in the phi_i gives example of mechanism, if you know what the phi_i > > represents. > > So you want to know if the physical neurons in my physical brain in my > physical head that sits atop my physical smolders are arranged in a pattern > that encodes information about that particular mathematical notation, because > otherwise phi_i would not correspond to any mathematical idea at all. The > answer is yes and so it does convey meaning to me. But by itself the "phi_i" > can have a thought or perform a calculation just about as well as the word > "cow" can produce milk. > > > Make step 3 less simple (aka less stupid) and we can continue. > > You are the one who has systematically recast it with less precision. When > > the precision are added you > > Precision?! You can't even specify who the referent is in the personal > pronouns you use wall to wall in the mess that you claim is a proof. > > >> I have no idea if I believe in what you call "physicalism" or not > because I don't know what you mean by mechanism. > > > YD + CT > > IHA > > > you have already given 80,000 dollars to a doctor. > > Yes. > > > You are a mechanist practitioners. > > OK, but in Brunospeak does that also mean I'm a physicalism practitioner? > Can you be one but not the other or are they synonyms? > > > You might have missed some of my earlier post, > > Yeah i missed that post of yours, and you missed my post where I proved P=NP > and the Riemann hypothesis. I posted it the same day you posted your > wonderful post you've been talking about for the last 10 years that solves > all metaphysical problems. > > > this was an idea by Aristotle, in contradiction with Pythagorus and Plato. > > Bruno, do you really think if you throw enough ancient Greeks at me who > didn't know where the sun went at night I'll change my views concerning > modern physics and mathematics? > > >> You haven't given ANY details about how an ASCII sequence by itself can > >> make a calculation because you don't know any details, > > > Which one? > > # 42 > > >> if you did you'd be the richest most powerful man who ever lived. In fact > >> you wouldn't be a man you'd be a God. > > > You talk like if the discovery of computation in arithmetic would lead > > automatically to their implementation in some physical reality. > > I talk like that because that is precisely what would happen UNLESS physics > can do something that mathematics can't. And since you clearly are not a God > I must conclude that physics can indeed do something that mathematics can't. > > > you need to implement the computer in the physical reality. That is > obvious. > > Exactly. And from that observation the only logical conclusion is physics is > more fundamental than mathematics. > > > But that would not have been possible without the discovery made by > Tiuring and others > > True, you can't just slap together matter in any old way and expect it to > perform a calculation, but there is a way it can be done and Turing taught us > what it was.. > > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f8e1ae0b-79ef-40db-a5a0-af69b719c01c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f8e1ae0b-79ef-40db-a5a0-af69b719c01c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F0CB12A-381C-4F3E-8D04-A92DF93A273C%40ulb.ac.be.
