Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 25 Dec 2013, at 21:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. OK. Some other did already a good job. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Compared to most scientists, I am realist on only a tiny part of arithmetic. Comp can be much less realist than most scientists, but sometimes being more realist shorten the proofs, and indeed that is how the observers accept new axioms from times to times. Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure Not at all. You miss the main point. The doctor needs realism in arithmetic to just explain to the patient what is meant by a digital brain, and what is Church's thesis. Then I just show that IF you believe that you can survive with it (in whatever reality exists making the turing emulation relatively possible) THEN the TOE is given arithmetic (or any Turing equivalent universal system), and physics become an arithmetical relative measure problem. It is a theorem. Not an idea that I propose because I would find it elegant. which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. On the contrary, no mathematical theory at all can exists on numbers and machines. You confuse the mathematical theories, and the intended reality describe by those theories. We know today that the arithmetical reality cannot be described entirely by any effective theories. However there are a number of problems with this theory. I don't want to look presumptuous, but it is a theorem, thus in a theory, which assumes *much* less than most existing theories. It seems you do favor computationalism, so you apply or not the theorem. Or if you disbelieve it you can search a flaw. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, Now you are more realist than me. mathematicians evolves all the time, and the human mathematics changes all the time. It even deepened vertiginously. whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. Math does not compute. It is mathematicians which proves theorems. They don't compute either, even if *they* are computed at some level. A computer computes. Universal numbers can compute relatively to universal numbers. Computations can be seen as type of arithmetical relations. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Hmm, Read the UDA. here you are close to digital physics, or the idea that reality is a computation, but the UDA shows that this cannot work. We cannot singularize first person by their computational states. They are distributed in many computations. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. Gödel, Church concerns digital processes, and many of their extensions on constructive ordinals. It is very general. It has nothing to do with humans, I mean, no more than the Boson H, or the galaxy Andromeda. Church thesis makes the notion of universal machine very general, and completely arithmetical, and independent of us or any aliens. That is much more independent of us than Andromeda. Anyway, I don't defend a truth, only a theorem. What I explain is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing, but of understanding or finding a flaw, which can be fatal or corrigible. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course, and doubly so, as human math is plunged in reality math. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, The math of reality, or the real math? I think that you confuse mathematical structures and the theories describing such mathematical structures. this will not help you to get the nuance when we treat the study of mathematical theories, mathematically. It is the difficulty of mathematical logic. but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 25 Dec 2013, at 22:29, LizR wrote: Bruno assumes a very minimal maths (peano arithmetic I believe) many variant are possible, but for the ontology I like to take Robinson arithmetic, which can be roughly presented in this way: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then I modelize the reasoner/observer by PA, which is RA + the induction axioms, that is 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x + (for all arithmetical formula F) the infinity (one for eaxh formula F) of induction axioms: (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x) It is the strongness of those induction axioms which makes PA into a Löbian machine, that is one having the G* theology. But I put them already in the epistemology. Just to help not mixing ontology and epistemology. PA = RA + the infinity of axioms (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x) Note that PA machines:numbers can be proved, by RA, to exist (in arithmetic). Like the UD, RA can also emulate the PA, and so we can do the interview of the infinitely PAs in arithmetic. RA can imitate PA, like Hofstadter can imitate Einstein by running his brain, or the Searle guy can imitate a chineese, that is without understanding it, nor becoming the people imitated. which I think can be found in reality. BECs for example appear capable of doing elementary arithmetic. Or are you suggesting that addition and multiplication don't exist in reality maths ? (Let me respectfully suggest you check out what Bruno is saying before deciding whether he's right or wrong - Thanks Liz. It is crazy how people forget to begin by the beginning, and to end with the ending, of a text, before saying what they think about it. though god knows you will have plenty of company in the camp which says Bruno must be wrong because - well, because he must be! I don't need to analyse the logic of his arguments, I can see they're wrong because ... well they just are. Because I say so! No, I'm not listening, la la la! etc). That's a good summary of the usual counter-arguments. You forget the shoulder shrugging and the eyes looking at the sky :( Of course sometimes they are genuine misunderstanding, and the subject is very complex. But some seem to judge without doing the home work, and that is sad/weird. Eventually they do the home work and just need to continue to deny, by fear of looking like behaving stupid, but of course that is when they do *look* stupid, and that is more sad/weird. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 26 Dec 2013, at 19:06, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, and Bruno, I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative and based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions. Yes. yes doctor + Church's thesis, in the UD Argument , and only elementary arithmetic in AUDA. All theories are assumption. Science always put the assumptions on the table together with the means of testing and verifying arguments. Again the basic problem I see is that this is all a theory constructed of human math with no reason to believe any of it applies to the actual real math that computes reality. I reassure you. It is the exact contrary. Now, if you don't believe that 2+2=4, then there is nothing I can do for you. Reality continues to merrily compute the current state of the universe with no problems whatsoever in spite of all human mathematicians' theories. What do you mean by Reality? You are using the term like a God-of-the gap. That is like pseudo- religion or pseudo-science. Can anyone give me any empirical evidence at all that any of Bruno's theory actually applies to any of the computational structure of reality? I don't mean whether its a valid mathematical theory or not. I mean look and examine what reality is actually doing and tell me if it's actually doing what Bruno postulates it is. That after all is the only scientific test Just find the flaw in the argument. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
Jason, Give me a link to the UDA and I'll gladly take a look. The computational system of reality runs in the logical space of reality, that's why its computations produce real and actual results in the universe. I call that logical space of reality ontological energy (OE) and see my other posts for a more detailed explanation. To explore reality math we have to examine what elemental computations actually run to produce the universe. They may be pretty simple. E.g. the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions is one such, as that comp just reallocates the particle properties from one set of valid particle associations to another. The big question is, are all the events in the universe at all scales just emergent results of such elemental computations or are there higher level computations that exist independently. In any case we have to look at what is the minimum set of comps necessary to compute the entire universe. That will show us what reality math really is. The assumption that all of human math somehow exists in some invisible Platonic world in some totally unobservable state is not falsifiable and thus is not science. The notion that all of human math, just because it may be consistent with reality math, actually has anything to do with the logical structure and computations of reality is completely unwarranted. We have to see what reality's comps actually are, that's the proper approach. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. Edgar -- 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. For more
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Give me a link to the UDA and I'll gladly take a look. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html It is not long, and explained in this paper such that even non-experts can follow it. Moreover, it is a logical argument divided into numbered steps, such that if you run into a difficulty at any particular step, you can say which one it is and we can go from there. The computational system of reality runs in the logical space of reality, that's why its computations produce real and actual results in the universe. I call that logical space of reality ontological energy (OE) and see my other posts for a more detailed explanation. To explore reality math we have to examine what elemental computations actually run to produce the universe. They may be pretty simple. E.g. the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions is one such, as that comp just reallocates the particle properties from one set of valid particle associations to another. The big question is, are all the events in the universe at all scales just emergent results of such elemental computations or are there higher level computations that exist independently. In any case we have to look at what is the minimum set of comps necessary to compute the entire universe. That will show us what reality math really is. The assumption that all of human math somehow exists in some invisible Platonic world in some totally unobservable state is not falsifiable and thus is not science. It is falsifiable if it predicts that our own laws of physics are highly unlikely. People often throw around not falsifiable prematurely in a theory's evaluation. Critics of Darwin said evolution was not falsifiable because it operated on time scales too long for anyone to observe. The notion that all of human math, just because it may be consistent with reality math, actually has anything to do with the logical structure and computations of reality is completely unwarranted. Actually, so far it seems to explain a lot. Non-clonability of matter, appearances of non-locality, appearances of randomness and unpredictability below the level of our substrate, the physical laws conforming to information laws, linearity, and others. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics could be explained as a consequence of the existence of all computations. We have to see what reality's comps actually are, that's the proper approach. Say we could discover what those computations are. The next question would be Why these laws, and not others? Would you have any justification that these computations are the only ones? If our consciousness is a computation, then if the same computation is instantiated in a different universe, we can find ourselves there. So the existence of these other universes or other computations is not something without observable consequences. It implies we could experience afterlives, for example. Jason On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
Jason, Thanks for the link Only the computations that account for observable effects can be assumed to exist. There is no evidence, or any reason to believe, for 'us' existing in other universes. That sounds like sci fi certainly a lot farther out than some are accusing me of being! :-) Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. Edgar -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for the link You're welcome. :-) Only the computations that account for observable effects can be assumed to exist. Given quantum mechanics, it appears there is a huge (perhaps infinite) number of computations that must exist already, just to explain physical observations to date. There is no evidence, or any reason to believe, for 'us' existing in other universes. It is a consequence of many of our current theories: many-worlds, cosmic inflation, string theory, arithmetical realism, mathematical realism, etc. That sounds like sci fi certainly a lot farther out than some are accusing me of being! :-) It does! But perhaps more surprisingly it is a direct consequence of even very modest theories, such as arithmetical realism. In any case, all of this should be more clear once you read the first 8 steps of the UDA. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. Edgar -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
Jason, and Bruno, I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative and based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions. Again the basic problem I see is that this is all a theory constructed of human math with no reason to believe any of it applies to the actual real math that computes reality. Reality continues to merrily compute the current state of the universe with no problems whatsoever in spite of all human mathematicians' theories. Can anyone give me any empirical evidence at all that any of Bruno's theory actually applies to any of the computational structure of reality? I don't mean whether its a valid mathematical theory or not. I mean look and examine what reality is actually doing and tell me if it's actually doing what Bruno postulates it is. That after all is the only scientific test Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. Edgar -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, and Bruno, I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative and based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions. Namely computationalism: the idea that the brain is a machine. This is the working theory of practically all scientists, and seems to be an assumption of the theory you propose as well. This is the only assumption you need for the first 7 steps. Again the basic problem I see is that this is all a theory constructed of human math with no reason to believe any of it applies to the actual real math that computes reality. If you believe reality is a computation, you are necessarily assuming the same computationalism, that Bruno's UDA uses. Reality continues to merrily compute the current state of the universe with no problems whatsoever in spite of all human mathematicians' theories. Can anyone give me any empirical evidence at all that any of Bruno's theory actually applies to any of the computational structure of reality? It is a proof. If you assume computationalism, then the rest of Bruno's theory follows as a logical consequence. The proof is constructive and broken into steps. If you disagree with any particular step in the reasoning, please let us know the number of the step so we can proceed. I don't mean whether its a valid mathematical theory or not. I mean look and examine what reality is actually doing and tell me if it's actually doing what Bruno postulates it is. That after all is the only scientific test It is a very difficult computational problem, but so far the results look promising, and it has passed a few tests without being refuted. For example, if there was no such thing as quantum mechanics, and its various strange effects, it would have refuted computationalism. Jason On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. Edgar -- You
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 27 December 2013 07:06, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, and Bruno, I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative and based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions. Unlike a theory that there is a common present moment, and that the present moment moves through some extra time dimension, you mean? :-) Bruno's assumptions are made explicit. Mainly they involve the idea that consciousness is a form of computation at some level. Again the basic problem I see is that this is all a theory constructed of human math with no reason to believe any of it applies to the actual real math that computes reality. You will need to explain what that means. All maths has been discovered by humans; all maths is part of a system that fits together and kicks back in various ways. Making this distinction sounds to me like a meaningless label with no philosophical traction. Reality continues to merrily compute the current state of the universe with no problems whatsoever in spite of all human mathematicians' theories. Or it doesn't, depending on how reality works. (God continues to sustain the universe no matter how many atheists deny his existence...) Can anyone give me any empirical evidence at all that any of Bruno's theory actually applies to any of the computational structure of reality? I don't mean whether its a valid mathematical theory or not. I mean look and examine what reality is actually doing and tell me if it's actually doing what Bruno postulates it is. That after all is the only scientific test Yes, apparently that has been done, and some features of reality have indeed been extracted from comp. I will let Bruno explain the details. I await with interest any empirical evidence supporting the theory that reality is being continually computed, and any actual results that differentiate that theory from existing theories which don't postulate this. That is after all the only scientific test. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. Edgar -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 26 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. See below. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. This approach has worked extremely well for the last 400 years. And it explains the famous unreasonable effectiveness of maths in the physical sciences (some have taken issue with this, but not very effectively imho). However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. To be exact, if maths does anything (and leaving aside whether it is an ontolgical basis of reality) - it describes the state of reality. That is what it was developed for, at least. For example, the inverse square law describes the attraction between two objects. The inverse sqIt's quite capable of doing this across time while not actually being in time itself, e.g. through differential equations. This is equally true of software, which just sits there (unless it is self-modifying code) and which is effectively read by the processor's instruction pointer one instruction at a time. Hence software is like a recipe and the processor is like a chef. No reason to think that maths requires any internal dynamism, any more than a recipe or computer progamme does. Time and change emerge naturally from the static structure. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. This is true. Maths is far greater than (our) reality, a fact which makes Max Tegmark's ideas of a mathematical multiverse seem more plausible. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. Begs the question of why human maths still works so well. It contains many results that have been discovered independently, for example, and plenty of results that can be applied to either abstract or real world problems *outside* the fundamental description of reality. This is a false dichotomy imho. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. We don't know that reality is granular. Recent results suggest it isn't, in fact. What actually exists is unknown, and if there is a mathematical multiverse there is a good reason why we don't have access to all of reality maths (which in this case is all of maths). As for infinity, our universe may in fact be infinite, and if it is then transfinite numbers could be generated, for example, by drawing lines across the universe and treating the distribution of matter along them as bits. These lines would in actual fact be infinite, and reality would in actual fact contain transcendental numbers. Similarly if space-time is actually a continuum. Even more so if it's an infinite continuum (OK maybe not even more so, but I do like a transfinite cardinal, especially at Christmas!) Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
Oops, the browser seems to have decided to post before I did. Oh well, I must have hit the wrong key. I'd almost finished but I see there's a bit of a muck up in one place. ERRATUM :) The inverse * sqIt's *quite capable of doing this across time while not actually being in time itself, e.g. through differential equations. Should be the inverse *square law's* quite capable of... and I may have rephrased the whole sentence actually, but I guess I'll let it stand. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. From the perspective of the software traces existing in arithmetic, it seems like it is running. It is known that no software can ever determine the true hardware it runs on. Thus from the point-of-view of some software running on a human laptop, or some software running in a platonic, statically existing Turing machine, if it is the same software things look the same. You add nothing to the computation by dematerializing past states of the machine in some effort to make it active. A machine in which all states continue to exist is no less of a computation than one in which past states disappear. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Does your theory account for what runs these computations? Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math. For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to compute only what actually exists. Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that computes the current state of reality. You really ought to read the UDA... All the other programs that don't actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math. How can we be so sure those other programs don't run? Why do you suppose they don't? Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his mathematical skills to elucidate that, He has. He's even written the program that (possibly) computes reality. rather than automatically trying to apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually apply. What other math can we use if not human math? Jason -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
