Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution
Hi, For reason of sharp time scheduling (I am in a teaching period), I will be shorter than usual. Craig, I still agree with most of your point below, but it contradicts the 19th century conception of mechanism, not the 20th century (post Turing Church ...) Mechanism. Bruno On 26 Feb 2013, at 17:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:30:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:26:49 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2013, at 01:30, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:07:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:11:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Feb 2013, at 15:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:58:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote: Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you. I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY stance. First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but cut mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness. In science we have only beliefs, But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are knowledge. Yes, but we can't know that. Can we know that we can't know that? Yes. That something that the machine can prove and know. How can we know what a machine can prove or know if our own knowledge is only belief? Because some time our beliefs are true. What does 'true' mean if we can only believe? We can't define that, but we have a lot of example. Suppose we meet and that I give you a slap. Then Bruno gave a slap to Craig would be true. It would not be true, if we meet, or not, and don't give you a slap. How do you know that we met or didn't meet? Maybe it was just a dream? Then it is true, or false, with respect to the dream. I was only illustrating a concept, known to de not definable, although approximable. There isn't necessarily a particular condition which is true or false in a dream. More often it just 'seems like' someone is your old college roommate in one sense, but maybe your brother also. Both truth and belief here are a posteriori to the sense experience of the dream itself, which is a gestalt and not meaningfully described by either-or expectations with respect to either belief or truth. In a dream, we don't know what we experience and we don't not-know what we experience. This is a truer representation of sense than public realism, which is disambiguated by thermodynamic irreversibility among the total collection of experiences. When we believe something, it means that we believe that it is true, even when keeping in mind that it is a belief, and that we might be wrong, that is not true. Not necessarily. There may be no objective truth quality. ? Sense pre-figures truth. Truth is a proportion or qualitative ratio of sense agreements against disagreements. We may be creating belief synthetically by our expectation. That is called wishful thinking. No, I'm talking about the idea that we have no beliefs at all until we question them. It may be an analytical abstraction that is a posteriori. We don't literally 'have a belief' that the sky is blue - we participate in a universe in which it seems that the sky is blue. It's a bit of sleight of hand to insert this presumption of belief where in fact the experience of the sky's color is not derived from any proposition or logical relation. If your criteria is wishful thinking, that might explain your question begging type of 'argument'. If you ask someone whether they believe that eating meat is immoral, they may not have had an opinion one way or another about it before you asked. There may not be an expectation that their spontaneously projected 'belief' reflects something that is 'true', but just an expression of what makes sense to them - what feels best in their mind or seems appropriate for their idea of their own character. I think it is better to try to see on what we agree, and build from that. Statements like eating meat is immoral are very complex high level statements not well suited for reasoning. If what I'm saying is true, eating meat is immoral is a very simple statement on the personal level, and ideal for pointing out the
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 26 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/26/2013 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 01:39, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, Have you seen how Tim Maudlin is now a vigorous proponent of the existence of Time as Fundamental? In his paper on comp, he seems to favor materialism against comp, so this is not so astonishing. Likewise he depart from the MWI. Hi Bruno, Yes, I agree, he does seem to assume some form of physicalism. Could subsets of your UD be the Stone dual of a line, as Maudlin defines them? Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra. Bruno Please elaborate. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. Bruno 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution
On 26 Feb 2013, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them. That raises questions like, Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the Earth? Or more generally does the physics of every universe consistent with comp include quasi-classical physics? I think so. But to justify this *many* open problem, in arithmetic, needs to be solved. It seems that it is necessary for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which comp is based. Are we to regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident? I am not sure. Difficult question. Bruno 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:38, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions. Question are never silly. Answer are always silly. I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now. Yet I raised one little suspicion in ...How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them... of circularity: we have to assume them to be able to derive them. Well, that the definition of an axiom. We just accept it, if only for the sake of the argument. Then we can prove them, by using the rule that we accept the axioms. It is not circular, it is based on the fact that we accept that p - p, or the rule that from p, we can derive p. For example in group theory, we accept that there is a neutral element. Then later one, if we are asked to justified the use of a neutral element, we can just say that we are working in a group, in which it exists, by definition, or axiom. If not, not. BTW I feel free to disagree with your just assumed argument WITHOUT being obliged to produce a (better?) counter-theory. That is your right. No doubt. Then again: ...Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to talk about them... Talk about WHAT? if they are NOT quantizing factors, NOT representing signs, how could you IDENTIFY the t e r m : NUMBER? (not just by another word of course). By doing a lot of exercise, like in high school, you can develop a familiarity with them, and accept some defining axioms. The brain does not really help; you need your heart. I might ask you how you identify the term woman. It is the same difficulty. We have to live with many things that we cannot defined. It seems your mental base builds ON numbers (whatever they may be) - not on qualia (musical complexity, emotions, feelings, etc. that do not spring from 'numbers'). That is due to cultural factor. But then in science, we want our theories not depending on interpretation, still less on emotions. But in private we sometimes point on them, like Einstein said that a theory, to be true, needs to be beautiful. Same with the numbers. Mathematicians are usually super-emotional beings, for the best, and the worst. Sorry about the last sentence (conclusion of the previous passage) in which I used Nature instead of world existence or whatever. Thanks for reassuring me. The reductionistic part of the totality to which we assign all we think about. ... to which some people assign what they all think about, I would say. About nature, I am agnostic. But when I'm in the comp mood, I definitely don't believe in it. Bruno JM On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John, On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote: Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art to measure each one into a proper participant): ...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without using 2+2=4 Bruno Explain, why 2+2=4 - without (human?) quantizing - even without using dots or marks and 'counting' them. Numbers? a joke. Because you said so? How did it arise? I assume them. It is part of the card I put on the table. Feel free to develop another theory. How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. What is 'counting'? assigning SOMEHOW a 'heap' to a sign you invented? Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to talk about them. Numbers status is independent of the signs used to refer to them, a bit like galaxies in the physical universe are usually supposed to be independent of human telescope. How 'bout another logic, another vision? (Zarathustran?) How could I understand what you mean by another logic or another vision without using the intuition of numbers? This just make no sense for me. Also numbers have nothing to do with logic. Again, logic is a mental tool, and formal logics presuppose our understanding of numbers. Then computationalism derived eight important different logics that the numbers already develop by themselves to understand themselves, so here you have your another logics. Numbers agree with you, somehow. But you have to recognize them to be able to listen to them, and indeed go farer than the human views. Go back and back and back in your presumptions/assumptions into more-and-more generalizations and you will find the human image you substitute for Nature (call it reality, existence, The World, - or Whatever (Everything). I do not assume Nature. The distinction between nature and human is a human artifice. More generally, the distinction between nature and numbers is a number artifice. It is an
Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:51, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this list it faded what you (really?) mean by quasi classical physics I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little randomness from QM: consisting of distinct objects in definite locations, not wave functions in infinite dimensional Hilbert space. brains Biological information processors found within skulls. and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on? ?? My comp? I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic accident (incident?). I put (your) to comp, because I am not sure about Bruno's IF true - and you did not refer to it either. Dinos? We know so little about the past of this world - even about not-so ancient HUMAN past (Dravidians) so infulential into our present world. Or how the Simians straightened up their spine to become human? (I am in favor of the 'aequatic ape' dream). And others. Dinosaurs were just an example. I wondered what Bruno meant by saying we were here from the beginning. I am not sure having said that. I might have mean this in the arithmetical ontological sense perhaps. If you find the quote I can say more. Was he denying there was a pre-human past? Certainly not. The prehuman-past is quite plausible, but it is not something absolute. It is something relative to many computations, which exists out of time and space. I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later. (BTW: was a neuron of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse? With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the past 50 years - no answer so far. Some of them were certainly longer. Isaac Asimov once speculated that the size of dinosaurs was limited because the larger an animal the faster it can run, but dinosaurs had unmylenated neurons (like those in our brains) which are quite slow in transmitting signals. So when a dinosaur got very big he could run off a cliff right in front of him because the signal from his eyes to brain to feet would propagate more slowly than his forward motion. :-) Lol, Bruno Brent Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?) JM On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them. That raises questions like, Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the Earth? Or more generally does the physics of every universe consistent with comp include quasi-classical physics? It seems that it is necessary for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which comp is based. Are we to regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident? 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. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 27 Feb 2013, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers? It's a one-to-one relation between objects. If you invent a special set of tokens (1, 2, 3) that everybody agrees on (i.e. a part of language) to use in the one-to-one relation then those are numbers. But I wasn't pretending to do without numbers; I was pointing out how they derived from experience - they were not just assumed. The fact that we see the world as composed of discrete objects (instead of wave functions or quantum fields or something else) might be an accident of the development of this universe - or it might be a necessary consequence of something about universes. I was just asking whether Bruno's comp had any bearing on that question. It certainly has, but it is difficult, because we can't throw out the fact that some very special programs, or collection of programs, win the measure battle for the first person indeterminacy problem. As long as physics is not derived from arithmetic, we can't answer to that question. I will not speculate, as people could confuse what is already derived and what is plausible, given the empirical facts and what we already know in computer science. Cluster of different sort of multiverses remain possible, especially if we derive less than QM from comp. Comp leads to a criterium to distinguish geographical truth from physical truth, but we have to progress a lot to be able to apply it. Bruno Brent On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one- to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? 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. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On Perception-- A description of the Perceiver provided by Leibniz, unique in western philosophy
Hi - Roger Clough Peception -which involves the final, recognition step of epistemology- is impossible without the Perceiver, which might be thought of as the end entity that stops the infinite regress implied by the necessity of a homunculus within a homunculus within a homunculus...etc.. Dennett describes this problem in terms of what he mockingly calls the Cartesian Theater. Dennett seems to solve the poblem by a fiat, returning to a monism of the perceiver and the flesh of the brain. It is not widely known that in thew 17th century, Leibniz had described the Perceiver as the Supreme Monad, the dominant, only one which which does actively perceive, then returns the perception to the individual monad whose eyes had taken in the image. No other western philosopher seems to have provided us with such a definite, unique solution to the problem of perception, which is, in essence, the solution to the mind-body problem. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. Dear Bruno, Why are you such a literalist?Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra? But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra. I was only using the word 'subset' to indicate the components of the UD, not a literal subset. Since the UD is not a set, it obviously cannot have subsets, so you should be able to deduce that I am not asking a question that implies otherwise. Let us try again. Are the components of the UD equivalent to Boolean algebras? Yes or No. If not, what relation do they have with boolean algebras? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Plant Teachers
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: The people who most hate smokers are ex-smokers. - PGC's father Since this thread has become a bit personal, I offer the view of a former judge of the German supreme court, who himself was not a smoker, nor did ever smoke: It's not really the passive smoking that bothers people, with exception of course to people trapped in a close working environment where everybody smokes and smoking is permitted. It's not the smell on their clothes either, since we have invented washing machines and dry cleaning. We need an attitude change instead of more rules: I think public spaces should regulate themselves and find creative ways to not lock anybody out, such as air vents over smoking sections of a bar, or that smokers at a bar will restrain themselves and be prepared to step outside if a guest with asthma arrives etc. The main issue is that everybody has vices and everybody in Germany has the constitutional right to act irresponsibly on personal choice matters that do not significantly hurt others. Significant harm is an open term here, to be calibrated by judges case-by-case. So the outrage on public smoking is people projecting their judgement of their own vices onto easy targets: passive smoking is a great example. Nobody has a problem walking through smoggy Berlin, Los Angeles, New York where particle emissions from fossil fuels of their SUVs also driven by non-smokers 'make my clothes stink, make me inhale carcinogens, cancerous toxins. Indeed, studies confirm that some cities have been deemed equivalent to smoking a few cigarettes a day, in terms of inhaled toxins. So why the fuss? People like to project what they dislike about themselves onto others behavior and feel the righteousness of judging right from wrong. I know this because I have been a judge all of my life; but I also know that the feeling is illusory and that these questions are much more difficult than our personal ethics. You can find temporary solutions to such issues and minimize harm. But you'll never get rid of the problem via regulation. You just move towards more extremism and uniformity. After all it is our imperfections that make us interesting. I've never smoked in my life, but passive smoke doesn't bother me, I even appreciate the smell of pipe tobacco. It's like I am transported to the orient. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2013, at 14:59, Quentin Anciaux wrote: All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure, people can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few days to every day, How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive behavior ? Seems quite strange to say that to have **anti** addictive properties, you should use it like an addict, seems contradictory. This does not necessarily follow. Many people can use some medication daily, without getting addicted. Taking salvia everyday asks for a big effort. I call it the huile de foie de morue of the drugs (Cod liver oil). ... In fact, except in forum, I see very few people developing an interest for that experience (except as a medication). But then I don't know so much people interested in the consequence of comp or in serious theology either. Salvia has this in common with comp: it does not go handy with wishful thinking. It has other relationship with comp, *like insisting on some secrecy of a part of the experience*, which corroborates the G/G* distinction. And that is the part which I have difficulty with and why I keep it at a close but rare distance. The joke seems immense and euphoric in its own terms, but the relevant brain subroutines, if you permit, are offended by every letter I type here, so there is some sense of stepping over a threshold that is a prohibited hack. Intuitively a question would be: So why was I invited? The small composer and the skeptic in me don't like this, even though they know ultimately resistance is futile. Yes, I understand. I will not add much, as I might say things on which I have to remain silent ... if I want to maintain good relation with the lady. :) Now, the secrecy problematic is a constant problem in theology, but also in a large part of psychology and medicine. We can guess it is normal, as brain are wired for terrestrial survival, which on some point can conflict with other form of survival. Then with comp it can be formally related to the fact that Bx - ~ x, admits solutions, like self-consistency (Dt) by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. The whole G* minus G describes the landscape of the correct machine's secret. Comp makes some secret conditionally communicable, in the form
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the difference between a audio and a video file, Absolutely false. How so? It can tell the difference between one file format and another, Well that's all I said. but there is no relation between a file format and the ability for that file to be output to a screen as opposed to a speaker And yet when I play a video on a web page my computer always sends the audio signal to the speaker and the video signal to the screen and not the other way round. How can it do that it it doesn't know if the output should go to the screen or speaker? Is it just lucky? I have opened music files before as bitmaps. You can still open an mp3 file as text in Windows by renaming it's extender. Yes, and in exactly the same manner I can examine your ideas and I can also open your skull and examine your brain; one way of looking at things does not contradict the other but are complementary, and a computer can look at things both ways. If a computer could tell the difference between an audio file and a video file, you wouldn't need file extenders Some modern programs can get along without file extensions, although if you deliberately try to confuse it by giving it a incorrect extension the conflicting information will make the machine queasy; and if you receive information from your eyes that conflicts with information from your inner ear you will get motion sickness and feel nauseous. As you can see from my sample above, your assertion is false. The machine is happy to crap out ASCII garbage instead of music You specifically told the machine to interpret it as ASCII, so why are you complaining that it did exactly as you requested? You're saying that the ability of computers to look at any file as a bitmap or as a bunch of ASCII symbols shows some sort of inherent limitation of computers, and that makes no sense. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:25:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the difference between a audio and a video file, Absolutely false. How so? Because if it could, then it wouldn't need any identifying bytes in the file to associate it with a program. Even if it could that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any kind of audio or video sensitivity. It can tell the difference between one file format and another, Well that's all I said. No, you said when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the difference between a audio and a video file. You are missing the enormous leap between discerning the differences between two differently labeled files, and any sort of audio or video presentation qualities. This is the difference that I am pointing out in this thread: A geometric form like a circle is not the same thing as a list of numerical coordinates. but there is no relation between a file format and the ability for that file to be output to a screen as opposed to a speaker And yet when I play a video on a web page my computer always sends the audio signal to the speaker and the video signal to the screen and not the other way round. How can it do that it it doesn't know if the output should go to the screen or speaker? Is it just lucky? Uh, no. The web browser is explicitly instructed by the code of the file which application list is appropriate. If it says mp3 or wav, then the OS will try the default app to process that file. Whether or not you even have your speakers plugged in means nothing. The computer has no idea what audio is. I have opened music files before as bitmaps. You can still open an mp3 file as text in Windows by renaming it's extender. Yes, and in exactly the same manner I can examine your ideas and I can also open your skull and examine your brain; one way of looking at things does not contradict the other but are complementary, and a computer can look at things both ways. A computer can only look at everything one way - as a binary code. It is the job of all computer peripherals to act as a medium for accessing a facsimile of external events as binary code. This is the opposite of what consciousness does. We can listen to a song or have a completely different experience watching that song encoded as video graphics - but the computer has no experience either way. Even people with synesthesia can recognize the difference between color and sound, even when they are experienced together in an unconventional way. A computer doesn't know anything about the world beyond its peripherals. It can't tell whether a bitstream ends up in your ears or eyes. It doesn't know if it's running on a laptop in the middle of a warzone or on a virtual server in a data center. If a computer could tell the difference between an audio file and a video file, you wouldn't need file extenders Some modern programs can get along without file extensions, although if you deliberately try to confuse it by giving it a incorrect extension the conflicting information will make the machine queasy; and if you receive information from your eyes that conflicts with information from your inner ear you will get motion sickness and feel nauseous. You don't need file extensions in every OS, but the fact that they exist at all should show you how helpless a computer is to figure out anything that it isn't programmed to check for. There is no condition which will make a machine queasy, and our sense of queasiness is not in any way a logical result of a data mismatch. If your ears and eyes had a conflict, it could just as easily be presented as a ringing in our ears or profuse sweating or hallucinations of Mayan calendars. As you can see from my sample above, your assertion is false. The machine is happy to crap out ASCII garbage instead of music You specifically told the machine to interpret it as ASCII, so why are you complaining that it did exactly as you requested? It's not interpreting it as ASCII, it is identifying it as ASCII. It has no memory that it ever was anything else and couldn't tell that it was related to music if its life depended on it. You're saying that the ability of computers to look at any file as a bitmap or as a bunch of ASCII symbols shows some sort of inherent limitation of computers, and that makes no sense. The limitation is not that they can open a file as a bitmap or ASCI, its that they can't tell the difference between the two. If I tell it a file is text, it thinks its text. If someone hands a person a book, and tells them that it is dinner, that wouldn't really work as well. Everything that you are saying indicates that you swallow the 'pathetic fallacy' 100%, and even
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:29:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather as a sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content because it means nothing, as in a burp, or because it means something self contradictory, such as free will or X is not random or deterministic. Translation: Anything that I don't agree with makes no sense and whoever says these things is subject to my ad hominem comments in lieu of valid criticism. It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Can you see how narrow your concepts of logic are and how they have nothing to do with reality? Can you see that in sufficient quantities alcohol is indeed a poison but that is also is a popular beverage which does not have to carry a POISON label? and so obviously anyone asserting X is speaking gibberish. And obviously anyone asserting that the actual world can be reduced to simplistic distinctions is speaking solipsism. So if free will is not random and free will is not not random, or alternately if free will is not deterministic and free will is not not deterministic then free will is gibberish, Does that mean that alcohol is gibberish too, because it is neither 100% poison nor 100% not poison? and so obviously anyone asserting free will has abandoned logic and is speaking gibberish. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. http://25.media.tumblr.com/208bb5a43ab31fd3250d9d2c7be4462f/tumblr_mfyu79B9qB1qeenqko1_500.jpg And it's not ad hominem if it's true. Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are true or not? The point is that they have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. If I say your position is robotic idiocy, it doesn't matter whether it's true, it still contributes nothing and distracts from the issue. What do my sentiments about you or your positions have to do with anything? Craig John K Clark A statement presented without justification, like computers can never be conscious like you and I are is not blather, just dull and dumb. Yet that is the opinion which I share with a neuroscientist who actually works in the field. Maybe your armchair opinion is just dull, dumb, blather? Craig 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Misconceptions of Natural Selection and Evolution
Sorry, I am superficialin my words. Your Comp referred to the idea your 'biological information processors in your skull' handles when you consider Bruno's comp. I missed that Asimov spot. He probably did not consider the neuronal input on 'running' vs. acknowledging the cliff. I participated for 2 decades in an enjoyable Wednesday Brownbag Lunch with the Drew Univ. ret. professors when one of us calculated out for us that it is physically impossible to play base-ball: the time to process visually the 'throw' is longer than the travelling time of the ball, so nobody can hit it. What led to 'deep' philosophical discussions.G My question about 'atomic size' was in consideration of the map of a neuron and the size avalable in the skull. Dinos did not parade brains of million times more than ours. Remember the Neandertals? with larger skulls and not necessarily more sophisticated brain-complexity than the Cro-Magnons? I always asked how much fat or other irrelevant matter was filling those bone boxes? Anthropologists do not like such questions. JM On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:46 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: forgive my weak 'brain': in the turmoil of BackAndForces on this list it faded what you (really?) mean by quasi classical physics I mean the world model of Newton and Maxwell plus a little randomness from QM: consisting of distinct objects in definite locations, not wave functions in infinite dimensional Hilbert space. brains Biological information processors found within skulls. and what 'ideas' is (your) 'comp' based on? ?? My comp? I think whatever we 'experience' is a (fortunate?) anthropic accident (incident?). I put (your) to comp, because I am not sure about Bruno's IF true - and you did not refer to it either. Dinos? We know so little about the past of this world - even about not-so ancient HUMAN past (Dravidians) so infulential into our present world. Or how the Simians straightened up their spine to become human? (I am in favor of the 'aequatic ape' dream). And others. Dinosaurs were just an example. I wondered what Bruno meant by saying we were here from the beginning. Was he denying there was a pre-human past? I hope you are not talking about TOE derived at Dino-time, or later. (BTW: was a *neuron* of a dino bigger than that of today's mouse? With what size atoms? I asked this questions from many bio-people over the past 50 years - no answer so far. Some of them were certainly longer. Isaac Asimov once speculated that the size of dinosaurs was limited because the larger an animal the faster it can run, but dinosaurs had unmylenated neurons (like those in our brains) which are quite slow in transmitting signals. So when a dinosaur got very big he could run off a cliff right in front of him because the signal from his eyes to brain to feet would propagate more slowly than his forward motion. :-) Brent Maybe the Savants of this list can answer it?) JM On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/26/2013 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That does not work. We belong automatically to an infinity of computations. With comp, the physical reality is unique, and derivable from 0, s, + and * (and the usual axioms). But cosmos or branch of a multiverse can be numerous, but before they differentiated, we are in all of them. That raises questions like, Where were we when dinosaurs roamed the Earth? Or more generally does the physics of every universe consistent with comp include quasi-classical physics? It seems that it is necessary for brains to exist and to have the ideas on which comp is based. Are we to regard this as just a fortunate anthropic accident? 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
Allow me please, one more remark: my ID for an axiom is *a ground-rule derived to facilitate the acceptance of a theory.* I suspect the axioms were invented AFTER the theoretical considerations to make them acceptable. They are called axioms because we cannot justify their acceptability. I am not ready to defend this. JM On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. Dear Bruno, Why are you such a literalist? Don't use technical terms, in that case. Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra? The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean. Bruno But doing some effort to translate what you say, the answer is NO. You can make the UD into a set by modeling it by the set of sigma_1 sentences. But the negation of a sigma_1 sentence is not necessarily sigma_1, so it gives not a boolean algebra. I was only using the word 'subset' to indicate the components of the UD, not a literal subset. Since the UD is not a set, it obviously cannot have subsets, so you should be able to deduce that I am not asking a question that implies otherwise. Let us try again. Are the components of the UD equivalent to Boolean algebras? Yes or No. If not, what relation do they have with boolean algebras? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in physics too. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification. I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. Bruno 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in physics too. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification. You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere motivation. I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x. My intuition doesn't reach to infinity. It seems like an hypothesis of convenience. 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
John, Allow me please, one more remark: I allow you an infinity of remarks. But not one more :) my ID for an axiom is a ground-rule derived to facilitate the acceptance of a theory. Hmm... That is not the standard idea. An axiom is simply an hypothesis. Like the hypothesis that there is a moon, or that 0 + x = x, etc. It is what we accept to proceed. I suspect the axioms were invented AFTER the theoretical considerations to make them acceptable. That is true, but they are useful to communicate ideas and beliefs to others. When formalized, the axioms and theorems don't depend on the many interpretations that they can have. In applied science, we cannot use such axiom, and so must do some semi-axiomatization, with implicit hypotheses, like the existence of the domain of application, like when we send persons or robots to the moon. They are called axioms because we cannot justify their acceptability. Yes. I am not ready to defend this. Without (semi)-axioms, we remain unclear and non refutable, so we can't so easily progress. Bruno JM On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/27/2013 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Are subsets of the UD equivalent to a Boolean Algebra? The UD is not a set. Dear Bruno, Why are you such a literalist? Don't use technical terms, in that case. Don't be such a hidebound stiff! Are the strings that make up the UD equivalent to a Boolean algebra? The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean. The UD is not an infinite number of Turing machine algorithms dovetailed together? There is no relation between a Turing Machine and a Boolean Algebra? I suspect that you know the relation but are not willing to discuss it! I think that you are evading my question! Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tim Maudlin
On 2/27/2013 9:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The UD is one program. It is one string. And UD* is an infinitely complex structure, roughly equivalent to sigma_1 truth, and structured from inside by the 8 hypostases, none being boolean. Hi Bruno, Sigma_1 logic is more powerful than Boolean algebras, but this does not allow Sigma_N logics to escape from the necessity of satisfiability. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
