> On 14 Mar 2021, at 15:56, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 5:24 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > I comment both Benjamin and Lawrence. > > > >> On 12 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com >> <mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-6 medinuclear wrote: >> [Brent Meeker] >> >> “https://alwaysasking.com/ >> <https://alwaysasking.com/>why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation” >> >> [Philip Benjamin] If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex >> nihilo, nihil fit” (Parmenides). >> > > OK. Key point. > > > > >> Laws of any kind necessarily requires the existence of a conscious Law Giver. >> > > But here I disagree. Consciousness will be the non provable truth (about > machine and by machine) related to their belief in some reality including > oneself. Introspective machine/number can’t miss it. > > > > > What is it that makes the truths concerning consciousness unprovable?
The truth concerning consciousness is provable in a (or the) theory of consciousness (given by the sound machine). The truth of “the fact of my consciousness here and now”, for example, is shown to be true and non provable by the machine, a bit like the truth of the consistency of the (sound) machine cannot be made by the machine itself. > > Is it unprovable only by that machine where another entity using another more > powerful system could prove it? It is knowable-for-sure by the machine (indeed it is the only thing which is knowable-for-sure), but the machine can know that it is not rationally knowable or justifiable. It belongs to a variant of a G* minus G type of proposition. > > Is it a consequence of self reference? It is indeed a consequence of the mathematics of self-reference, together with the classical definition of Plato and the Neoplatonician. But those definition can be motivated through the thought experiences when assuming mechanism, in a diverse way. > > Is it related to trying to prove statements of a form "Machine X cannot prove > P”? Yes. (And through mechanism, we can relate it also to the mechanist thought experience, as it is the only thing linking consciousness to the machine, by the “yes doctor” act of faith). More generally, with “[0]p” interpreted by Gödel’s provability predicate (sigma_1 complete) provable(‘p’), it is related to ~[0]p ~[1]p ~[2]p ~[3]p ~[4]p With the arithmetical, and non-arithmetical operators defined by [0]p = the usual Gödelian provability predicate (beweisbar, provable, …). [1]p = [0]p & p (knowable; This one cannot be defined in arithmetic, or by the machine) [2]p = [0]p & <0>t (observable) [3]p = [0]p & <0>t & p (sensible; This one cannot be defined in arithmetic, or by the machine). > > If I run a simulation of some entity on my computer, could I not prove > statements about the knowledge/information states contained by it's mind? Yes, you can, but only by assuming it has a (conscious) mind, which is something that you cannot prove, even for humans, aliens, gods, whatever. You cannot prove it about yourself either, despite you can know-it-for-sure. > > What exactly are the limits of what can be proved? Is it just about qualia? It is about any Reality big enough to satisfy all your beliefs, where you is any sound machine believing in any essentially undecidable theory, like the very weak theory Q (Robinson Arithmetic). No machine can define its own semantic. From the machine points of view, its own semantic obeys many typical axioms of the One of the neoplatonician (not nameable, not provable, not doubtable, not observable, yet responsible for *all* the nameable, the provable, the doubtable, the observable). With mechanism, in a first pass “god”, the One, is the arithmetical Reality, and in the second pass, when we interview the computationalist Löbian machine, in fine, the One is the tiny sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (aka the universal dovetailing). Bruno > > Jason > > > > > >> The logical question is: “what is more reasonable?” DEAD MATTER producing >> life or LIFE producing both dead matter and life-forms? Only a degree of >> rationality can be established here. >> >> > > Both in the arithmetical reality, and in the physical reality, life is a > simple consequence of the so called second recursion theorem by Kleene. It is > the fact that piece of codes can encode all it needs to protect itself, to > reproduce itself, to grow, develop, organise and evolved… > > Now, the physical reality is not a primitive primary reality, but an illusion > common to all relative numbers, in almost all of their consistent histories. > > > > > > >> The laws are constructs of the human mind. [Lawrence] > > The expression of the laws are constructs of the human mind, but I guess you > are OK that F=GmM/r^2 was as much approximately true before human life > appears on this planet and after. OK? > > > > > > > > >> There may be patterns in nature, and we inductively infer them as laws. > > … OK, and we can sometimes deduce some laws from other, and verify with > Nature. Then there are some mathematical laws, that we find by introspection > and dialog with others. > This is neutral with respect to the question of the origin of the physical > reality. With Mechanism, the physical reality does not need to be assumed, > and in fact cannot be assumed if we want get both the quanta and the qualia, > as this requires a much simpler theory, like any Turing universal > system/theory. > > >> The idea there must be a mind for anything to exist is silly. > > Yes. It is like abandoning to try to explain mind (and matter). It is better > to not assume neither mind nor matter as fundamental. But we have to assume > at least one universal machinery, and the old Pythagorean one works very well > (natural numbers + the laws making it in a Turing universal system). > > > >> Where did the mind come from, and if such a mind existed there was then no >> true nothingness. > > Yes. In fact it is the empty explanation “God made it”, which might work, > actually, but only with a mathematically precise theory of God, and an > explanation of it build the physical reality, or how it makes us believe in a > physical reality. > > With mechanism we assume only “very elementary arithmetic” (PA without the > induction axioms), and derive from this the existence of the universal > numbers, and get physics from their own notion of observable. Physics becomes > a statistics on the relative experience/dream by numbers emulated in > Arithmetic, in virtue of the laws of + and *. > > What people miss is that the notion of computation is purely an arithmetical > notion. See the book by Martin Davis, and its chapter 4, for a proof of this, > but Gödel’s 1931 contains it already implicitly. Gödel missed it because he > missed the Church-Turing thesis, and was quite skeptical until 1936 where he > was convinced by Turing. > > > > > [Benjamin:] > >> Civilized, erudite Phoenician, profligate pagan Augustine of >> Greco-Roman roots was instantly TRANSFORMED into a non-pagan and pulled the >> West off Greco-Roman paganism and superstitions >> (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine >> <https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine>). Thus he >> was the chief architect of Western Civilization built on the foundation of >> the Apostolic discourse at Athenian Mars Hill (Acts 17) where the >> Greco-Roman Unknown god was identified as the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH >> (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles. >> >> Progressive pagans with un-awakened consciousness cannot escape the >> questions of causality, aseity, morality, meaning and telos by simply >> evading them or assuming illogically the aseity of Dead Matter. >> > > I think that most “progressive pagans” never really assumed the existence of > Dead Matter, nor even of any Matter, to begin with. > > Bruno > > > > > >> Philip Benjamin >> >> >> >> From: 'Brent Meeker' Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:38 PM >> everyth...@googlegroups.com <> Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist? >> >> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au <>> wrote: >> >> What was there before there was nothing? >> >> >> >> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, >> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of >> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define >> all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a >> result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: >> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23A_Story_of_Creation&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cec5e0f69aead43a3c24308d8e32a6d06%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637509118637908964%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Lrh0EuaQoC0WABBOwHIKVI7SwW4TYdzZaqaqysIVp6c%3D&reserved=0> >> >> But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist". Logical laws, >> number, etc are derivative on language. They don't "exist" physically. The >> logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate. Any sensible >> discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several >> different meanings. >> >> Brent >> >> --. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27d045ca-8d46-4eab-9084-3bcea523b826n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27d045ca-8d46-4eab-9084-3bcea523b826n%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B4A08744-6D82-4B28-861B-2E21F6BA877B%40ulb.ac.be > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B4A08744-6D82-4B28-861B-2E21F6BA877B%40ulb.ac.be?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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhVa_qSZmh5Hxb3iAo%2BvdWF%2BD7h7fpUjpbNFkUFux3j7w%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhVa_qSZmh5Hxb3iAo%2BvdWF%2BD7h7fpUjpbNFkUFux3j7w%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4BE51547-1FFE-4547-949E-C676B5E8F194%40ulb.ac.be.
