Dear Bruno, as far as you wrote and I understood, your Mechanistic framework requires the tenet that quantum wave collapse does not exist.
In order to prove that, you invoke the authority of Everett. I want to provide a simple, very rough explanation (excuse me!), for the FISers unaware of the Everett's account: You are in front of two streets, one turns left and the other turns rigth. You have to choose where to turn. If you turn left, you could not anymore turn right. This is, very roughly speaking, what quantum wave collapse means: if you make a choice, it is irreversible in our Universe. In order to avoid such irreversibility, Everett, who did not like quantum wave collapse, provided the following account: every time you have to choose whether you have to turn left or right, the entire Universe splits in two different Universes: in one Universe you turn left, while another you turns right in another Universe. Now, dear FISer, tell me if the Everett's approach is tenable or it is not, and, if your answer is that it is tenable, tell me how it could be even theoretically demonstrated. > Il 17 maggio 2018 alle 11.25 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha scritto: > > Dear Arturo, > > > > > > On 14 May 2018, at 12:25, tozziart...@libero.it > mailto:tozziart...@libero.it wrote: > > > > > > Daer Bruno, > > > > first of all, sorry for the previous private communication, but for > > a mistake, I did not add the FIS list in the CC. > > > > > > Concerning your Faith, i.e., arithmetic, > > > > > I agree it is faith, but it is less faith than any scientists. > > Especially that we need only a tiny part of the arithmetical truth. > > Did you have heard about someone taking back his/her children from > primary school when they are taught the laws of addition and multiplication, > by claiming they have not that faith? > > > > > > > > > this appraoch... simply does not work for the description of > > physical and biological issues. > > > > > The approach just study the necessary logical consequence of > > assuming our bodies to be digitalisable. I predicted all the quantum > > weirdness from this 45 years ago. But then it took me 30 years to get > > precise mathematical predictions, which until now fits with the fact, when > > physicalism needs a brain-mind identity thesis which has been shown > > inconsistent. > I am not sure why you say that Mechanism cannot work for physical and > biological issues. You might confuse the computable (like automata), and the > semi-computable (like the universal Turing machine). > > > > > > > > > > It is just in our mind. See: > > > > http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0132 > > > > > > > > What do you mean by “real world”? > I agree Euclid geometry is in our head. The whole physical reality is > indeed shown to be “in the head” of *any* universal machine or universal > number, etc. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not confusing digital physics with Mechanism, and I read, of > > course, the work of Everett (the original mathematical one), and it is > > exactly like Mechanism: an untestable, fashinating analogy. He wants, > > without any possibility of proof, to extend the realm of quantum dynamics > > to the whole macroscopic world. > > > > > > > > For a logician; Everett is the Herbrand model of the Schroedinger > equation, that is QM without the unintelligible “collapse” of the wave. Put > simply: the “many-world” is just literal quantum mechanics without collapse. > Everett did not propose a new speculative theory: he just showed that we > don’t need the collapse axiom, as QM + mechanism recovers it > phenomenologically. Then my work shows this can work only if we recover also > the wave itself from arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). > > It is the collapse which is bad and unclear, and not needed, untestable, > assumption. > > > > > > > > When you state that: > > > > > > > "the reality becomes the universal mind (the mind of the > > universal Turing machine) and the physical is the border of the universal > > mind viewed from inside that universal mind". > > > > > > > > > > you are saying something that, reductionistic or not (I do not > > understand your emphasis on this rather trascurable concepts of matter, > > reduction, and so on), needs to be clearly proofed, before becoming the > > gold standard. > > > > > > > > What I did has been peer reviewed and verified by many people. Have you > read my papers? > Did you find a problem, or are you just criticising the > assumption/theory? Ask specific question, but normally all this has been > clearly proofed. > > > > > > > > A suggestion: you cold try to correlate your "physical border of > > the Universal mind viewed from inside that universal mind" with the > > holographic principle and the cosmic horizon. > > > > > I prefer to invoke the physical reality only for the testing. > > There is some possible analogy here, which might be interesting, but > > Mechanism is an hypothesis in psychology, or theology, not in physics, > > which needs to be entirely recovered from arithmetic (or Turing > > equivalent). For this type of Mechanist (Neo)platonism: looking at the > > physical universe is … cheating. (Somehow). > > > > > > > > > But in order to do that, you need a strong math, not to quote old > > philosophers that, > > > > > > I have decided to study Mathematics for just that. My thesis is a PhD in > mathematics and theoretical computer science. All what I say has been > translated entirely in arithmetic, by using Gödel’s technic of > arithmetisation of metamathematics. I got testable quantitative result which > have been tested. I am not sure you have study my work, which is usually > criticised for being … mathematics. > > > > > > > > for a simple matter of luck, were able to inconsciously predict > > some recent developments of the modern science. > > > > > ? I predicted the non-cloning theorem 30 years before the > > physicist get it, and much more. > > Please study my papers before judging(*) > > > > > > > > > I like logic, I love logic, I read logic, I study logic, I read a > > lot of the latin texts of the old philosophers that use it (in the > > Medioeval ones), but I have to confess that the scientific value of logic > > is close to zero. Both of the ancient and of the "novel" logics. > > > > > > > > The logicians are the one who discovered the universal machine > (computer), before it was build. You are using one just now. You seem to > ignore Gödel’s contribution, which in my opinion is, when we assume mechanism > (the older metaphysical/theological assumption) the most important result > ever discovered by the humans. > > > > > > > > Sorry again! > > > > > > > > You don’t need to be sorry, but my feeling is that you are not aware of > the result that I got. It is science, which means that it is not a question > of agreeing or disagreeing, but of understanding or refuting. > Maybe you could study the following papers (if interested): > > Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. > Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 > > Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in > Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. > > B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th > International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE > 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > (sane04) > > Plotinus PDF paper link: > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf > (Reference: Marchal, B, 2007, B. Marchal. A Purely Arithmetical, yet > Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In > Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and > Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June > 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di > Roberto Magari, 2007). > > The math part requires some background in mathematical logic including > provability logics, like: > > G. Boolos. 1979, The Unprovability of Consistency, an Essay in Modal > Logic, > Cambridge University Press. > > G. Boolos. The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, > Cambridge, 1993. > > > Best, > > Bruno > > PS That is my second message. Possible comment next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Messaggio originale ---------- > Da: Bruno Marchal < marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be > > A: FIS Webinar < fis@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es > > > Data: 14 maggio 2018 alle 11.48 > Oggetto: Re: [Fis] [FIS] Is information physical? > > Dear Arturo, Dear Colleagues, > > > > > > On 11 May 2018, at 18:36, > tozziart...@libero.it mailto:tozziart...@libero.it wrote: > > > > Dear Bruno, > > I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. > > > > > > > > I take a disagreement as a courtesy to pursue a conversation, > which would be boring without them. > > But, what I say has been proved, peer reviewed by many, so it is > perhaps more a matter of understanding than of agreeing. > > Or you are just telling me that you disbelieve in Mechanism. I > prefer to remain agnostic. > > Mechanism is my working hypothesis. The idea is to take it > seriously until we find a contradiction (internal or with the observation). > It is a common by default type of hypothesis, held by many people, notably > most materialist. But here I can prove that (even weak) materialism (the > belief in ontological primary substances/matter) is inconsistent with (even > weak) mechanism. See my papers for this, it is not entirely obvious. > > > > > > > > > "eventually I found a conceptually isomorphic explanation > > in arithmetic." Isomorphy is a dangerous claim: the underliying > > mechanisms in biology could be something other than isomorphism (i.e., an > > Ehresmann connection in a hyperbolic manifold, as it occurs in gauge > > theories). > > > > > > > > Nothing in the observation point on either primary matter, nor on > non mechanism. I am not sure why you think that Ehresmann connection or gauge > theories are non mechanist. Actually Mechanism entails that the physical > phenomenology cannot be mechanistic. You might confuse Mechanism in the > cognitive science with digital physics. > > Digital physics (the idea that the physical reality is Turing > emulable) does not make any sense. It entails mechanism, but mechanism > entails the falsity of digital physics (see my paper or ask question: that is > not obvious). So, with or without Mechanism, Digital Physics makes no sense. > > > > > > > > > > Futhermore, you simply change the name of the primum > > movens, the first principium: instead of calling it physics, you call it > > arithmetic. This is as fideistic as the Carnap's physicalist claims. > > > > > ? > > Physics assumes Arithmetic. > > Arithmetic do not assume physics. > > I can follow you with the idea that arithmetic still ask for some > faith, but the amount is less than assuming a primary physical reality. > > Then, I have never heard about parents taking back their kids > when they are taught elementary arithmetic. > > Also, with mechanism, we need to assume only a Turing universal > machinery. With less than that, we get no universal machinery at all. With > one of them, we get all of them. I simply use arithmetic because everyone are > familiar with it. The theology and physics of machine do not depend on the > choice of the universal system assumed at the start. It is an important new > invariant of physics. Indeed, it determines entirely physics (always assuming > Mechanism (aka computationalism). > > > > > > > > > > "If you think that a brain is not Turing emulable, you > > might be the one to whom people can ask". The burden of the final proof is > > yours, because your claim is stronger and less conventional than mine. > > > > > > Mechanism is a common, implicit or explicit, hypothesis among > philosophers and scientists. It is a very old theory, already in “the > question of Milinda” (a buddhist old text), and of course Descartes. Diderot > identified it with rationalism. That makes sense, because to assume its > negation consists in adding something for which we do not have any evidence > (until now). > > Maybe you confuse computable (like automata) and semi-computable > (like Turing machine). It is the existence of universal machine which is > responsible for the incompleteness of theories, because there is no complete > theory possible for anything enough rich to prove the existence of universal > machine, like, amazingly enough, already very elementary arithmetic. > > > > > > > > > If you say that angels do exist, you have to provide the > > proof, it's not me that have to provide the proofs that they do not exist. > > > > > > > > But you are the one saying that “angels” exist, with “angels” > pointing on something not “computable nor semi-computable” in nature or the > mind … > > Mechanism is just the conjunction of the Church-Turing thesis > (CT) + “yes doctor” (YD, the idea that we can survive with a brain digital > prosthesis). A version of Mechanism is that there is no magic at play in our > body. > > Then it seems that you claim a form of weak materialism, but > there too, you are the one reifying the notion of primary-matter. That is a > strong axiom in metaphysics, and there are no evidences for it. It is a > natural extrapolation from the mundane experience, and we can understand why > evolution has select such a belief, as we need to take the existence of prey > and predator seriously. But this, as the Indian and Greeks understood a long > time ago, does not provide any evidence of primary matter (a notion absent of > any book in physics). > > > > > > > > "I will ask your evidence for the wave collapse." This is > > indeed a strange claim. There are tons of published papers that > > demonstrate the wave collapse. > > > > > > ? > > You might give one reference. I have never found one. I would say > that there are evidences for the wave only. > The collapse is an addition to avoid the > many-histories/worlds/minds, which follows from taking the wave seriously, as > the experimental interference invites us to do. It introduces an non > intelligible cut between the observed and the observer. It introduces > indeterminacy and non locality. And there are many incompatible theories for > the collapse, which is indeed rather non intelligible. > > Then, with Mechanism, the problem is that we have to extract the > wave too, from *all* computations, and not just the quantum one. But that is > what I have done: I extracted a quantum logic where machines have to expect > it: a measure on all computations. > > > > > > > > You may discuss why and how it occurs, but you cannot > > negate this clear, polite, puzzling, experimentally-detected phenomenon. > > > > > > > > I would suggest you to study the work of Everett, who by using > only the wave and Mechanism, explains entirely the appearance of a collapse > without assuming it. > Then, as I say, bu using mechanism, Everett missed that all > computations are already in arithmetic, and that universal digital machine > cannot detect in the first person way if they are emulated by any basic > particular universal machine, and the wave itself required to be explained by > digital information theory (aka computer science). > > Here, very often people misses that all computations are not just > described in elementary arithmetic, but are realised, in virtue of the true > relations among numbers. 99% of this has been found by Gödel, but Gödel > missed the point, done later by Turing, Post, Church, Kleene, etc. > > > > > > > I think that your theory has just analogies with quantum > > dynamics, and the analogy is the worst enemy of science. > > > > > There is no analogy. When you say “yes doctor”, > > the digital brain in the head will not be an analogy. The rest followed by > > logic and elementary arithmetic. > > > > > > > > > This seems the same type of theories that claim, for a > > simple analogy, that the brain and consciousness work at quantum levels. > > > > > But if we postulate collapse, all the evidence > > becomes evidence for this. Yet, Abner Shimony has refuted, or show the > > amount of magic, needed to sustain that consciousness reduces the wave > > packet. > > You might study my papers, as all what I say just follow from CT > + YD. (Church’s Thesis + “Yes doctor”). Sometimes I call it Indexical > computationalism, to distinguish it from Digital physics (in metaphysics. > Digital physics can be useful as an approximation in some branches of > physics). > > > > > > > > Sorry, but diplomacy has never been my first virtue… > > > > > > No problem Arturo, as long as you don’t use insult or mockery, or > ad hominem remarks, or things like that, which I take as “I have no argument > but dislike what you did”. > > My feeling is that you might ignore the important difference > between computable and semi-computable, and you might think that mechanism is > a reductionism, when it is more like a vaccine against the reductionist > conception of machine and numbers, enforced by the incompleteness theorem. > > You can guess that mechanism is less reductionist than > non-mechanism, as the mechanist will say yes to his daughter when she want to > marry a man with a prosthetic brain, where the non-mechanist will treat such > a man as a less human, if not a( philosophical) zombie. Then you seem to > assume a primary physical universe, which eventually do not make sense with > the mechanist hypothesis. > > To sum up; I have done two things: > > - I have shown that (weak) mechanism is logically incompatible > with (weak) materialism. So there is no problem with Materialists who reject > Mechanism: as they should. > > _ I have shown, by keeping up with my mechanist hypothesis, how > to recover the physical appearance and its stability from arithmetic (or > anything Turing equivalent). That makes Mechanism testable, by comparing the > physics “in the head of the universal machine/number” with the observation. I > did indeed extracted already the propositional physical logic, and got a > quantum logic, which fits well with the one of the quantum physical logician > (and is richer, so it makes new prediction). If mechanism is false, this > provides in the Mong run a method to evaluate how much mechanism is wrong, > and, who knows, to detect primary matter. But up to now, the empirical study > of nature confirms Mechanism, more than Materialism. > > I don’t know if mechanism is true or false. But I will not hide > that I find it elegant. Arithmetic gives the third person sharable > information, and incompleteness + non definability gives a platonic sort of > first person information “theology” which includes the physical (material) > appearances as an unavoidable phenomenology. I predicted the many-worlds from > mechanism and arithmetic much before I knew about quantum physics, but it > took me 30 years of works to derive precisely the quantum logical formalism. > Needless to say, many open problems remains, but if we count the experimental > evidences, they all add yup to mechanism, and none add up to (even weak) > materialism. With Mechanism, Mark Burgin is right: information is not > physical, but so is matter and the whole object of physics. Abstractly; the > reality becomes the universal mind (the mind of the universal Turing machine) > and the physical is the border of the universal mind viewed from inside that > universal mind. Again, I do not defend that claim. I show it testable only. > > Best regards, > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > > > > venerdì, 11 maggio 2018, 06:03PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal > > marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be : > > > > > > > > > Dear Arturo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 May 2018, > > > at 15:23, tozziart...@libero.it mailto:tozziart...@libero.it wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bruno, > > > > You state: > > > > "IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in > > > > the cognitive science, > > > > THEN “physical” has to be defined entirely in > > > > arithmetical term, i.e. “physical” becomes a mathematical notion. > > > > ...Indexical digital mechanism is the > > > > hypothesis that there is a level of description of the brain/body such > > > > that I would survive, or “not feel any change” if my brain/body is > > > > replaced by a digital machine emulating the brain/body at that level of > > > > description". > > > > > > > > The problem of your account is the following: > > > > You say "IF" and "indexical digital mechanism > > > > is the HYPOTHESIS”. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeed. It is my > > > > working hypothesis. The idea came when asking myself how an amoeba can > > > > build an amoeba. Then I discovered the solution provided by molecular > > > > genetics, and eventually I found a conceptually isomorphic explanation > > > > in arithmetic. Note that by making explicit the use of the level of > > > > description, my hypothesis is much weaker than most form of > > > > computationalism you can see in the literature. My reasoning would > > > > remain valid even if my body is the entire universe, described by > > > > quantum string theory with 10^(10^100) exact decimals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, you are talking of an HYPOTHESIS: it > > > > is not empirically tested and it is not empirically testable. > > > > > > > > > > > I start from an > > > > hypothesis and show, on the contrary that it is testable. I predicted > > > > well before I knew anything on quantum mechanics that Mechanism entails > > > > that if we look at nature below our substitution level, we should find > > > > the trace of infinitely many computations, and only later did I > > > > discover that quantum mechanics, without the wave collapse, entails > > > > something very similar. But Mechanism leads also to a complete > > > > formalism for both quanta and qualia, and here too, the > > > > theory/hypothesis match with facts. As it predicts a richer formalism, > > > > some crucial tests remain to be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are starting with a sort of postulate: I, > > > > and other people, do not agree with it. > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer to not say my > > > > opinion. I am not defending Mechanism. I show it testable. My goal > > > > consists in showing that we can do metaphysics with the scientific > > > > method, where we never claim that something is true, just that the > > > > evidences makes it plausible. > > > > > > The negation of the digital mechanist theory is > > > usually considered as more “extra-ordinary”, as it implies either actual > > > infinities, or some sort of magic. If you think that a brain is not > > > Turing emulable, you might be the one to whom people can ask: what is > > > your evidence? You might need to refer to something non computable in > > > Nature and not recoverable through the first person indeterminacy. Note > > > that mechanism entails that physics is NOT emulable by a Turing machine, > > > and that consciousness is NOT emulable by a machine), so you need special > > > sort of infinities. In fact, non-computationalism can only benefit from > > > the study of computationalism, as it shows what is need for a theory to > > > be a non-computationalist theory of mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current neuroscience does not state that > > > > our brain/body is (or can be replaced by) a digital machine. > > > > > > > > > > > At which level? > > > > > > Except for the famous but controversial “reduction of > > > the wave packet” we still don’t have find in Nature a non computable > > > process. That might exist, as we can “mathematically” find non computable > > > solution to the Schroedinger equation, but those are not of the type we > > > observe anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, your "IF" stands for something > > > > that possibly does not exist in our real world. Here your entire > > > > building falls down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > It falls down because you are making the contrary > > > hypothesis, the hypothesis that something is not Turing emulable in > > > nature, nor recoverable by the first person indeterminacy. That might be > > > possible, but that has not been proved, nor even really defined. Your own > > > hypothesis falls down by a similar argument than yours, but your own > > > hypothesis is not as well clear as mine, unless you invoke the wave > > > collapse? In that case, I will ask your evidence for the wave collapse. > > > > > > You cannot use the word “real”. That is the same > > > mistake than using the word God. What is real is what we search. We > > > cannot start from the answer. > > > > > > My feeling is that you confuse the universal machine, > > > which is only partially computable, and confronted to a lot of non > > > computable truth in arithmetic with the pre-Godelian conception of the > > > machine, closer to to the notion now called automata. I guess I will have > > > opportunity to make this clear. > > > > > > I would like to insist (and detailed perhaps later) > > > that Mechanism is the less reductionist theory we can imagine. Indeed, a > > > universal machine can refute all complete theories about itself. It is a > > > sort of universal dissident. More intuitively, it does not qualify as > > > zombie a man or woman who would have survived with some brain prosthesis. > > > The moral question will eventually be this one: “do you accept that your > > > son or daughter marry someone having got an artificial hippocampus > > > prosthesis? > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > > > > > > > > giovedì, 10 maggio 2018, 02:46PM +02:00 da > > > > Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (This > > > > mail has been sent previously , but without success. I resend it, with > > > > minor changes). Problems due to different accounts. It was my first > > > > comment to Mark Burgin new thread “Is information physical?”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mark, Dear Colleagues, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apology for not answering the mails in > > > > > the chronological orders, as my new computer classifies them in some > > > > > mysterious way! > > > > > This is my first post of the week. I > > > > > might answer comment, if any, at the end of the week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 Apr 2018, at 03:47, Burgin, Mark < mbur...@math.ucla.edu > > > > > mailto:mbur...@math.ucla.edu > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to suggest the new > > > > > > topic for discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is information physical? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is an important topic indeed, very > > > > > close to what I am working on. > > > > > > > > > > My result here is that > > > > > > > > > > IF indexical digital mechanism is correct > > > > > in the cognitive science, > > > > > > > > > > THEN “physical” has to be defined > > > > > entirely in arithmetical term, i.e. “physical” becomes a mathematical > > > > > notion. > > > > > > > > > > The proof is constructive. It shows > > > > > exactly how to derive physics from Arithmetic (the reality, not the > > > > > theory. I use “reality” instead of “model" (logician’s term, because > > > > > physicists use “model" for “theory"). > > > > > > > > > > Indexical digital mechanism is the > > > > > hypothesis that there is a level of description of the brain/body > > > > > such that I would survive, or “not feel any change” if my brain/body > > > > > is replaced by a digital machine emulating the brain/body at that > > > > > level of description. > > > > > > > > > > Not only information is not physical, but > > > > > matter, time, space, and all physical objects become part of the > > > > > universal machine phenomenology. Physics is reduced to arithmetic, > > > > > or, equivalently, to any Turing-complete machinery. Amazingly > > > > > Arithmetic (even the tiny semi-computable part of arithmetic) is > > > > > Turing complete (Turing Universal). > > > > > > > > > > The basic idea is that: > > > > > > > > > > 1) no universal machine can distinguish > > > > > if she is executed by an arithmetical reality or by a physical > > > > > reality. And, > > > > > > > > > > 2) all universal machines are executed in > > > > > arithmetic, and they are necessarily undetermined on the set of of > > > > > all its continuations emulated in arithmetic. > > > > > > > > > > That reduces physics to a statistics on > > > > > all computations relative to my actual state, and see from some first > > > > > person points of view (something I can describe more precisely in > > > > > some future post perhaps). > > > > > > > > > > Put in that way, the proof is not > > > > > constructive, as, if we are machine, we cannot know which machine we > > > > > are. But Gödel’s incompleteness can be used to recover this > > > > > constructively for a simpler machine than us, like Peano arithmetic. > > > > > This way of proceeding enforces the distinction between first and > > > > > third person views (and six others!). > > > > > > > > > > I have derived already many feature of > > > > > quantum mechanics from this (including the possibility of quantum > > > > > computer) a long time ago. I was about sure this would refute > > > > > Mechanism, until I learned about quantum mechanics, which verifies > > > > > all the most startling predictions of Indexical Mechanism, unless we > > > > > add the controversial wave collapse reduction principle. > > > > > > > > > > The curious “many-worlds” becomes the > > > > > obvious (in arithmetic) many computations (up to some equivalence > > > > > quotient). The weird indeterminacy becomes the simpler amoeba like > > > > > duplication. The non-cloning of matter becomes obvious: as any piece > > > > > of matter is the result of the first person indeterminacy (the first > > > > > person view of the amoeba undergoing a duplication, …) on infinitely > > > > > many computations. This entails also that neither matter appearance > > > > > nor consciousness are Turing emulable per se, as the whole > > > > > arithmetical reality—which is a highly non computable notion as we > > > > > know since Gödel—plays a key role. Note this makes Digital Physics > > > > > leaning to inconsistency, as it implies indexical computationalism > > > > > which implies the negation of Digital Physics (unless my “body” is > > > > > the entire physical universe, which I rather doubt). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My opinion is presented below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why some people erroneously > > > > > > think that information is physical > > > > > > > > > > > > The main reason to think that > > > > > > information is physical is the strong belief of many people, > > > > > > especially, scientists that there is only physical reality, which > > > > > > is studied by science. At the same time, people encounter something > > > > > > that they call information. > > > > > > When people receive a letter, > > > > > > they comprehend that it is information because with the letter they > > > > > > receive information. The letter is physical, i.e., a physical > > > > > > object. As a result, people start thinking that information is > > > > > > physical. When people receive an e-mail, they comprehend that it is > > > > > > information because with the e-mail they receive information. The > > > > > > e-mail comes to the computer in the form of electromagnetic waves, > > > > > > which are physical. As a result, people start thinking even more > > > > > > that information is physical. > > > > > > However, letters, > > > > > > electromagnetic waves and actually all physical objects are only > > > > > > carriers or containers of information. > > > > > > To understand this better, let > > > > > > us consider a textbook. Is possible to say that this book is > > > > > > knowledge? Any reasonable person will tell that the textbook > > > > > > contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself. In the same way, > > > > > > the textbook contains information but is not information itself. > > > > > > The same is true for letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves and > > > > > > other physical objects because all of them only contain information > > > > > > but are not information. For instance, as we know, different > > > > > > letters can contain the same information. Even if we make an > > > > > > identical copy of a letter or any other text, then the letter and > > > > > > its copy will be different physical objects (physical things) but > > > > > > they will contain the same information. > > > > > > Information belongs to a > > > > > > different (non-physical) world of knowledge, data and similar > > > > > > essences. In spite of this, information can act on physical objects > > > > > > (physical bodies) and this action also misleads people who think > > > > > > that information is physical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. The reason is that we can hardly > > > > > imagine how immaterial or non physical objects can alter the physical > > > > > realm. It is the usual problem faced by dualist ontologies. With > > > > > Indexical computationalism we recover many dualities, but they belong > > > > > to the phenomenologies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One more misleading property of > > > > > > information is that people can measure it. This brings an erroneous > > > > > > assumption that it is possible to measure only physical essences. > > > > > > Naturally, this brings people to the erroneous conclusion that > > > > > > information is physical. However, measuring information is > > > > > > essentially different than measuring physical quantities, i.e., > > > > > > weight. There are no “scales” that measure information. Only human > > > > > > intellect can do this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. I think all intellect can do that, > > > > > not just he human one. > > > > > > > > > > Now, the reason why people believe in the > > > > > physical is always a form of the “knocking table” argument. They > > > > > knocks on the table and say “you will not tell me that this table is > > > > > unreal”. > > > > > > > > > > I have got so many people giving me that > > > > > argument, that I have made dreams in which I made that argument, or > > > > > even where I was convinced by that argument … until I wake up. > > > > > > > > > > When we do metaphysics with the > > > > > scientific method, this “dream argument” illustrates that seeing, > > > > > measuring, … cannot prove anything ontological. A subjective > > > > > experience proves only the phenomenological existence of > > > > > consciousness, and nothing more. It shows that although there are > > > > > plenty of strong evidences for a material reality, there are no > > > > > evidences (yet) for a primitive or primary matter (and that is why, I > > > > > think, Aristotle assumes it quasi explicitly, against Plato, and > > > > > plausibly against Pythagorus). > > > > > > > > > > Mechanism forces a coming back to Plato, > > > > > where the worlds of ideas is the world of programs, or information, > > > > > or even just numbers, since very elementary arithmetic (PA without > > > > > induction, + the predecessor axiom) is already Turing complete (it > > > > > contains what I have named a Universal Dovetailer: a program which > > > > > generates *and* executes all programs). > > > > > > > > > > So I agree with you: information is not > > > > > physical. I claim that if we assume Mechanism (Indexical > > > > > computationalism) matter itself is also not *primarily* physical: it > > > > > is all in the “head of the universal machine/number” (so to speak). > > > > > > > > > > And this provides a test for primary > > > > > matter: it is enough to find if there is a discrepancy between the > > > > > physics that we infer from the observation, and the physics that we > > > > > extract from “the head” of the machine. This took me more than 30 > > > > > years of work, but the results obtained up to now is that there is no > > > > > discrepancies. I have compared the quantum logic imposed by > > > > > incompleteness (formally) on the semi-computable (partial recursive, > > > > > sigma_1) propositions, with most quantum logics given by physicists, > > > > > and it fits rather well. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Fis mailing list > > > > > Fis@listas.unizar.es > > > > > mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es > > > > > > > > > > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fis mailing list > > > Fis@listas.unizar.es mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es > > > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
