Re: Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

God indeed does not physically exist. 
The Creator must remain uncreated.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/22/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-22, 07:19:12
Subject: Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense


Here's my post for this morning. I think it relates:



God and The Gaps


If existence is physical reality, then God doesn? exist. In fact, it could be 
said that it is the absence of God which allows anything to exist. Said another 
way, it is the unreality of the totality which maintains the conditions of real 
(bounded, conditional, consequential) existence. Mortality is the masking of 
immortal boundarylessness. A kind of cage or lattice for what insists beyond 
all sequence or consequence. Only because on any ultimate level of description 
of the universe, there is nothing there to constitute a boundary. There can? be 
a boundary, because then it too would be the universe. Whether it? the laws 
that make the laws that make the laws of mathematics that make the laws of 
physics that make the superstrings that make the quantum, or just the limits of 
our own imagination, on some level, there is an everything, and that everything 
can be considered to be, in one and only one sense, one and only one thing - a 
source of signal/order/sense/experience. The singularity of totality.
Existence is a combination of signal and noise. The further in space we get 
from our own signal, the more we lose reception and the less signal we 
encounter in relation to noise and space. This loss of reception is true across 
literal distance as well as metaphorical distance. The more unfamiliar the 
territory, the less we can relate. As scales get infinitesimal or immense, we 
objectify and mechanize to reflect the disjunction to our own subjective 
anchoring of perception.
Space is entropy. In both the thermodynamic sense and the information sense, 
space is the every gap between signals that contains only the possibility of 
signal detection. In the void between our body and its surroundings, there is 
?othing there? to respond to us on a human level, or a biochemical level, or a 
physical level. To us a room full of hydrogen gas is an empty space. To 
hydrogen however, maybe the only empty space is the flux between near 
collisions - moments of virtual decoherence which define a gaseous state (as 
opposed to a Bose-Einstein condensate approaching absolute zero). What I am 
calling virtual decoherence, I think, can be better understood as sense. A 
pantomime of universal expectation that is empirical - it develops within 
experience. It makes sure that the expected keeps happening and the unexpected 
stands out. Momentum-inertia, probability, and significance.
If there were a God, he-she-it-we-they would be zero entropy. Zero space. Zero 
space but all time. Almost all time. Almost no space. Almost no entropy. Almost 
pure signal. Because the capacity to generate signal in any sense at all is 
power and knowledge, and power and knowledge are relative. Relative in the 
sense that ?n the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king?, but also in the 
sense that knowledge itself is relation, and power is the ability to relate 
knowledge to the self.
One signal in an empty universe is all it takes to define omnipotence and 
omniscience relative to the emptiness of noise. Once a signal pretends to 
exist, there is nowhere to put it. It has no entropy - no space in which to 
exist as an object, so it insists, as a becoming of its own absence. This is 
the single self-subdividing event that turns eternity into an infinite now 
(pretending to be history).
If there were a God, it would be all of us put together. The everythingness 
behind the nothingness behind every nested multiplicity of almost 
somethingness. No space, no noise, no distance - only infinite significance 
becoming more significant. Infinite because by definition it is the only game 
in town. More significance through the paradox of self-insignificance. Being 
humbled makes us great. A great big pile of crap. Decaying broken forms 
pretending to be whole and beautiful and perfect to each other for a season. 
For every season, over and over. It? only the greatness however, the underlying 
potential wholeness, beauty and perfection that needs to pretend it is 
pretending though. The whips and scorns of time form the perfectly imperfect 
frame for eternity. A pecking order of gravity to squeeze the life out of us, 
crushing our unreal wilderness of warm soft fiction with the shadows of cold 
hard facts.
What exists to us is almost almost infinite noise across almost infinite 
distance, except for a sand-clock trickle of ?ow? which contains all of the 
signals that can be squeezed together yet still be held distinct from each 

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Craig Weinberg]

Here's my post for this morning. I think it relates:


*God and The Gaps *


If existence is physical reality, then God doesn’t exist. In fact, it could 
be said that it is the absence of God which allows anything to exist. Said 
another way, it is the unreality of the totality which maintains the 
conditions of real (bounded, conditional, consequential) existence. 
Mortality is the masking of immortal boundarylessness. A kind of cage or 
lattice for what insists beyond all sequence or consequence. Only because 
on any ultimate level of description of the universe, there is nothing 
there to constitute a boundary. There can’t be a boundary, because then it 
too would be the universe. Whether it’s the laws that make the laws that 
make the laws of mathematics that make the laws of physics that make the 
superstrings that make the quantum, or just the limits of our own 
imagination, on some level, there is an everything, and that everything can 
be considered to be, in one and only one sense, one and only one thing - a 
source of signal/order/sense/experience. The singularity of totality.

Existence is a combination of signal and noise. The further in space we get 
from our own signal, the more we lose reception and the less signal we 
encounter in relation to noise and space. This loss of reception is true 
across literal distance as well as metaphorical distance. The more 
unfamiliar the territory, the less we can relate. As scales get 
infinitesimal or immense, we objectify and mechanize to reflect the 
disjunction to our own subjective anchoring of perception.

Space is entropy. In both the thermodynamic sense and the information 
sense, space is the every gap between signals that contains only the 
possibility of signal detection. In the void between our body and its 
surroundings, there is ‘nothing there’ to respond to us on a human level, 
or a biochemical level, or a physical level. To us a room full of hydrogen 
gas is an empty space. To hydrogen however, maybe the only empty space is *the 
flux between near collisions* - moments of virtual decoherence which define 
a gaseous state (as opposed to a Bose-Einstein condensate approaching 
absolute zero). What I am calling virtual decoherence, I think, can be 
better understood as sense. A pantomime of universal expectation that is 
empirical - it develops within experience. It makes sure that the expected 
keeps happening and the unexpected stands out. Momentum-inertia, 
probability, and significance.

If there were a God, he-she-it-we-they would be zero entropy. Zero space. 
Zero space but all time. Almost all time. Almost no space. Almost no 
entropy. Almost pure signal. Because the capacity to generate signal in any 
sense at all is power and knowledge, and power and knowledge are relative. 
Relative in the sense that ‘in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is 
king’, but also in the sense that knowledge itself is relation, and power 
is the ability to relate knowledge to the self.

One signal in an empty universe is all it takes to define omnipotence and 
omniscience relative to the emptiness of noise. Once a signal pretends to 
exist, there is nowhere to put it. It has no entropy - no space in which to 
exist as an object, so *it insists, as a becoming of its own absence*. This 
is the single self-subdividing event that turns eternity into an infinite 
now (pretending to be history).

If there were a God, it would be all of us put together. The everythingness 
behind the nothingness behind every nested multiplicity of almost 
somethingness. No space, no noise, no distance - only infinite significance 
becoming more significant. Infinite because by definition it is the only 
game in town. More significance through the paradox of self-insignificance. 
Being humbled makes us great. A great big pile of crap. Decaying broken 
forms pretending to be whole and beautiful and perfect to each other for a 
season. For every season, over and over. It’s only the greatness however, 
the underlying potential wholeness, beauty and perfection that needs to 
pretend it is pretending though. The whips and scorns of time form the 
perfectly imperfect frame for eternity. A pecking order of gravity to 
squeeze the life out of us, crushing our unreal wilderness of warm soft 
fiction with the shadows of cold hard facts.

What exists to us is almost almost infinite noise across almost infinite 
distance, except for a sand-clock trickle of ‘now’ which contains all of 
the signals that can be squeezed together yet still be held distinct from 
each other. What exists is 99.99…9% entropy because what insists is 0.00…1% 
entropy. A distanceless ‘here’ that has nowhere else to be, perpetually 
spinning the universe around it, over and over. Almost all time (every time 
except now), almost no space (nowhere except here).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this 

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote:

>> where do you think the flaw is.

 Step 8. In the idea that one can simply not postulate a physical  
universe and thus make it vanish.


I ask you to provide what is invalid in a proof that P -> Q, and you  
give me a philosophical opinion why you estimate that Q is non sense.  
That is not a refutation of P -> Q.


You are missing the tiny bit of reference to the physical world  
in each and every number.


There is no such references. Logicians are literalist.

If you prove this, then you can add a 9th step and conclude that  
comp is wrong. But you keep saying this without proof or argument.


I cannot help if you cannot see it.


I cannot see it if you don't show it. In science all assertion can be  
justified. Either they are hypothesis, or they follow from the  
hypotheses by the inference rules. This has nothing to do with true  
and false, note.


It is the stability of consciousness itself, but this does not  
make consciousness primitive. I truly need to present a more  
carefully reasoned argument for the neutrality of consciousness. You  
refuse to read B. Russell's stuff. OK... You will have to deal with  
my terrible writings...


I did read it, but you keep repeating the contrary. So we are in a loop.

If you could just consider building a toy model of how to 1)  
represent a pair of amoeba with your construction and 2) model the  
conversation between them that is possible.


This is an exercise for undergraduate. See my paper "amoeba, planaria  
and dreaming machine". The planaria program does this effectively for  
any number, or eeven constructive ordinal number of interacting cells.


No, I am not. Primitive reality has no properties associated with  
it. It cannot be assumed or one gets contradictions in one's theory.  
It is not numebrs or matter or pink unicorns it is only necessary  
possibility.


Sorry but this does not make sense.

No, sigma_1 representations are only what can be non- 
contradictorily communicated, it is not the whole of reality.


Of course reality is sigma_2, sigma_3, etc. But sigma_1 can be  
contradictory. Indeed it can be false also.


You are not behaving like an agnostic. You are behaving like a  
"True Believer"!


You should not let your cat walking on your keyboard.

You can't use philosophy to refute a technical point, Stephen. Unfair  
incongruities will not help. You are the one who keep pretending  
having seen a flaw; you are the one obliged to show it, or to retract  
and be more cautious.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/19/2012 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



You don't really 'come to the idea' at all though, you assume it
from the start. There is no theory for why or how numbers would
dream, only the assumption that they do.


[BM]
Here I absolutely disagree. The theory is that I am a material
machine. The conclusion is that matter is an hallucination, yet a
lawful one. It looks like you have not yet take a deep look on UDA.

[Craig]
I conclude that matter is a hallucination also, but not our 
hallucination. Matter begins as the (shared, intentional) 
hallucination of our molecular subselves. The key though, is that the 
extent to which our experience is distant from our molecular 
sub-realities is directly proportional to the realism and involuntary 
nature of our experience with matter.


Dear Craig and Bruno,

This just might be a way of dealing with the "substitution level" 
question if we go a bit deeper to the atomic! If we think of the 
material world as defined at the atomic level and consider them as the 
basic entity having a model logic ala comp, Craig use of electromagnetic 
forces would be even more justified. We could use a physicist's thoughts 
on this...



It's confusing to me when you say that we are a material machine, yet 
matter is a hallucination, so that means we are a hallucination 
machine - which is ok by me, but why bring matter into it at all? What 
makes some hallucinations into matter?


I answer this question by noting that if multiple entities have 
"hallucinations" that are in a relation such that there exists a 
transformation between them, such as what we see in a diffeomorphism 
between coordinate systems, then a "common world of matter" seems to 
inevitably follow. (This is what the bisimulation algebra that I worked 
on seeks to formally represent...) The key is to think of the properties 
involved. What are the properties of matter that give it its 
"substance"? Electrostatic repulsion at the molecular level plays a huge 
role...
What would be the logical dual of this effect? Pask considered this 
in his claim of "No Doppelgangers" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask#No_Doppelgangers


My view is that the same thing that gives the hallucinations 
significance (makes them more narrative and eidetic, more pull toward 
gestalt coherence) has a symmetric exhaust in the form of 
entropy...which is space.


Space. as I define it, is the multiplicity of possible places that 
an object could be located. Time is the common perceived sequencing of 
events. But what is pushing the events to change in the first place? Why 
not just a frozen static relation? Some people have pointed to a deep 
level inconsistency, like the omega-inconsistency idea.

http://www.mathresources.com/products/mathresource/maa/omega_inconsistency.html

"omega inconsistency,
n. (Philosophy) the apparent paradox that occurs when the principle of 
induction fails, that is, when it is not possible to infer from the fact 
that each element of a domain has a property that all of them have it. 
It is so called since the paradigm case is that of the finite ordinal 
numbers, each of which has a finite successor while they clearly do not 
all have a finite successor as the set of finite ordinals is the 
smallest infinite ordinal, omega. A philosophical example, due to 
Russell, is that it is part of the concept of desire that one wants each 
of one's desires to be satisfied, but amongst those desires is the 
apparently inconsistent desire to face new challenges, that is, to leave 
some of one's desires unsatisfied; thus one can satisfy any of one's 
desires but not all of them. This paradox seems best resolved by 
observing a change of the scope of the universal quantifier."


This is a nice article on the subject: 
http://beitiathustra.wordpress.com/2005/11/30/brief-explanation-of-omega-inconsistency/


A change in scope of the universal quantifier is still a change 
that has to be accounted for. What is change coming from? What if []<> 
itself is globally inconsistent? My dear friend Prof. Hitoshi Kitada 
wrote on this:


from http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0212092v1.pdf

"The class φ is the first world, the Universe, which is completely 
chaotic. In other words,
φ is “absolute inconsistent self-identity” in the sense of Kitarou 
Nishida, whose
meaning was later clarified by Ronald Swan in the form stated above. In 
this clarifi-

cation, φ can be thought “absolute nothingness” in Hegel’s sense.
The Universe φ is contradictory, and hence its truth value is constantly 
oscillating between
the two extremal values or poles, truth and false, or +1 and −1, or more 
generally, inside
a unit sphere of C. Namely, the class φ as a set of wff’s of the set 
theory S is countable,
but the values which the elements of φ take vary on a unit sphere. In 
other words, the

Universe φ is a stationary oscillation, when we see its meaning."

This has implications for the Measure problem

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/19/2012 6:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.


Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I 
understand that 2+2=4" follows, at least, from the requirement that 
many entities capable of making such statements can point to 
examples of 2+2=4 and communicate about such statements with each 
other however far away in space and time they are from each other. 
We can ignore the fact that there is a collection of entities to 
whom the statement "I understand that 2+2=4" has a meaning. You 
need to get a grip on the nature of meaningfulness. Searle has 
tried to do this with his Chinese Room idea but failed to 
communicate the concept. :_(


Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic 
Up="Understands p".  :-)


Brent
--



Hi Brent,

That would be wonderful if possible. AFAIK, understanding is 
contingent on demonstrability, e.g. I understand p if and only if I 
can demonstrate that p implies q and q is not trivial and q is true 
in the same context as p. I think that Bruno's idea of "interviewing 
a machine" is a form of demonstration as I am trying to define it 
here. In my thesis, demonstrability requires that the model to be 
demonstrated is actually implemented in at least one possible 
physical world (i.e. satisfies thermodynamic laws and Shannon 
information theory) otherwise it could be used to implement a Maxwell 
Demon.


BTW, it was an analysis of Maxwell's Demon that lead me to my 
current ideas, that abstract computation requires that at least one 
physical system actually can implement it. This is not ultrafinitism 
since I am allowing for an uncountable infinity of physical worlds, 
but almost none of them are accessible to each other (there exist 
event horizons, etc.).
Consider the case where a computation X is generating an exact 
simulation of the behavior of molecules in a two compartment tank 
with a valve and there exists a computer Y that can use the output of 
X to control the valve. We can easily see that X could be a 
subroutine of Y. If the control of Y leads to an exact partition of 
the fast (hot) and slow (cold) molecules and this difference can be 
used to run Y then some might argue that we would have a computation 
for free situation. The problem is that for the hot/cold difference 
to be exploited to do work the entire apparatus would have to be 
coupled to a heat reservoir that would absorb the waste energy 
generated by the work.  Heat Reservoirs are interesting beasts


If your computer simulation is acting as Maxwell's demon then you 
don't need a heat reservoir.


 Hi Brent,

Good point. I stand corrected! But did my remark about 
understanding make any sense to you? I am trying to work out the 
implication of the idea of Boolean algebras as entities capable of 
evolving and interacting as it is a key postulate of the idea that I am 
researching. The Maxwell Demon is just a nice and handy toy model of 
this idea, IMHO. Could the Maxwell Computational Demon "understand" what 
it is doing? We could add the capacity to have a self-model as a 
subroutine and thus a way to gauge its actual efficiency against a 
theoretical standard as a way to implement a "choice" mechanism... See 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehno85yI-sA for a discussion of this 
self-modeling idea.


The demon makes one tank hot an the other cold so a heat engine runs 
on the difference.


Yes, the demon would act in a cycle: Compute the simulation to 
operate the valve to segregate the hot from cold and then use the heat 
engine to charge a battery, discharging the difference in temperatures. 
Can this run forever? No, given real world things like friction and the 
wearing out of parts, but in the idea case it might seem to be able to 
run for ever.


Unfortunately this is impossible because such a simulation would 
require defining the initial state of the particle's position and 
momentum in the two tanks.  This is not available for free.  To 
determine it by measurement takes at least as much free energy as can 
be recovered after implementing Maxwell's demon.


The idea case would shift the initial position/momentum question 
into a synchronization question: how is a measurement different from the 
"inverse" of a simulation? I do not have any good words to express my 
thought here... Let's see where the discussion takes us.







See 
http://www.nature.com/news/the-unavoidable-cost-of-computation-revealed-1.10186 
for more on this.


But if you're doing a calculation once on a given machine it's not 
necessary to erase the result.  In Feynman's paper on quantum 
computing he note this gets around Landauer's limit.  So long as the 
evolution of the compu

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[meekerdb]

On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.


Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I understand that 2+2=4" 
follows, at least, from the requirement that many entities capable of making such 
statements can point to examples of 2+2=4 and communicate about such statements with 
each other however far away in space and time they are from each other. We can ignore 
the fact that there is a collection of entities to whom the statement "I understand 
that 2+2=4" has a meaning. You need to get a grip on the nature of meaningfulness. 
Searle has tried to do this with his Chinese Room idea but failed to communicate the 
concept. :_(


Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic Up="Understands p".  :-)

Brent
--



Hi Brent,

That would be wonderful if possible. AFAIK, understanding is contingent on 
demonstrability, e.g. I understand p if and only if I can demonstrate that p implies q 
and q is not trivial and q is true in the same context as p. I think that Bruno's idea 
of "interviewing a machine" is a form of demonstration as I am trying to define it here. 
In my thesis, demonstrability requires that the model to be demonstrated is actually 
implemented in at least one possible physical world (i.e. satisfies thermodynamic laws 
and Shannon information theory) otherwise it could be used to implement a Maxwell Demon.


BTW, it was an analysis of Maxwell's Demon that lead me to my current ideas, that 
abstract computation requires that at least one physical system actually can implement 
it. This is not ultrafinitism since I am allowing for an uncountable infinity of 
physical worlds, but almost none of them are accessible to each other (there exist event 
horizons, etc.).
Consider the case where a computation X is generating an exact simulation of the 
behavior of molecules in a two compartment tank with a valve and there exists a computer 
Y that can use the output of X to control the valve. We can easily see that X could be a 
subroutine of Y. If the control of Y leads to an exact partition of the fast (hot) and 
slow (cold) molecules and this difference can be used to run Y then some might argue 
that we would have a computation for free situation. The problem is that for the 
hot/cold difference to be exploited to do work the entire apparatus would have to be 
coupled to a heat reservoir that would absorb the waste energy generated by the work.  
Heat Reservoirs are interesting beasts


If your computer simulation is acting as Maxwell's demon then you don't need a heat 
reservoir.  The demon makes one tank hot an the other cold so a heat engine runs on the 
difference.  Unfortunately this is impossible because such a simulation would require 
defining the initial state of the particle's position and momentum in the two tanks.  This 
is not available for free.  To determine it by measurement takes at least as much free 
energy as can be recovered after implementing Maxwell's demon.




See http://www.nature.com/news/the-unavoidable-cost-of-computation-revealed-1.10186 for 
more on this.


But if you're doing a calculation once on a given machine it's not necessary to erase the 
result.  In Feynman's paper on quantum computing he note this gets around Landauer's 
limit.  So long as the evolution of the computation is unitary no energy need be 
dissipated.  So I don't see how the result is relevant to Bruno's UD.


Brent



We ignore the role played by our physical world in our 
philosophical/mathematical/logical discussions to our peril!


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.


Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I 
understand that 2+2=4" follows, at least, from the requirement that 
many entities capable of making such statements can point to examples 
of 2+2=4 and communicate about such statements with each other 
however far away in space and time they are from each other. We can 
ignore the fact that there is a collection of entities to whom the 
statement "I understand that 2+2=4" has a meaning. You need to get a 
grip on the nature of meaningfulness. Searle has tried to do this 
with his Chinese Room idea but failed to communicate the concept. :_(


Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic Up="Understands 
p".  :-)


Brent
--



Hi Brent,

That would be wonderful if possible. AFAIK, understanding is 
contingent on demonstrability, e.g. I understand p if and only if I can 
demonstrate that p implies q and q is not trivial and q is true in the 
same context as p. I think that Bruno's idea of "interviewing a machine" 
is a form of demonstration as I am trying to define it here. In my 
thesis, demonstrability requires that the model to be demonstrated is 
actually implemented in at least one possible physical world (i.e. 
satisfies thermodynamic laws and Shannon information theory) otherwise 
it could be used to implement a Maxwell Demon.


BTW, it was an analysis of Maxwell's Demon that lead me to my 
current ideas, that abstract computation requires that at least one 
physical system actually can implement it. This is not ultrafinitism 
since I am allowing for an uncountable infinity of physical worlds, but 
almost none of them are accessible to each other (there exist event 
horizons, etc.).
Consider the case where a computation X is generating an exact 
simulation of the behavior of molecules in a two compartment tank with a 
valve and there exists a computer Y that can use the output of X to 
control the valve. We can easily see that X could be a subroutine of Y. 
If the control of Y leads to an exact partition of the fast (hot) and 
slow (cold) molecules and this difference can be used to run Y then some 
might argue that we would have a computation for free situation. The 
problem is that for the hot/cold difference to be exploited to do work 
the entire apparatus would have to be coupled to a heat reservoir that 
would absorb the waste energy generated by the work.  Heat Reservoirs 
are interesting beasts


See 
http://www.nature.com/news/the-unavoidable-cost-of-computation-revealed-1.10186 
for more on this.


We ignore the role played by our physical world in our 
philosophical/mathematical/logical discussions to our peril!


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[meekerdb]

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.


Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I understand that 2+2=4" 
follows, at least, from the requirement that many entities capable of making such 
statements can point to examples of 2+2=4 and communicate about such statements with 
each other however far away in space and time they are from each other. We can ignore 
the fact that there is a collection of entities to whom the statement "I understand that 
2+2=4" has a meaning. You need to get a grip on the nature of meaningfulness. Searle has 
tried to do this with his Chinese Room idea but failed to communicate the concept. :_(


Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic Up="Understands p".  :-)

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Aug 2012, at 13:41, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They  
dream by encoding computational state of person, relatively to  
some universal number, which are encoding universal machine  
relatively to some other one, and the initial one can be chosen  
arbitrary. Those are not symbolic number, but real encoding  
number, a bit like the genome if you want.


Dear Bruno,

  Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which an  
encoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between one  
set and another)


?


   How do you define "encoding"? What kind of mathematical entity is  
it?


I define it by its program, and its semantics. So you can see encoding  
as defined by the number k such that phi_k(x) is an encoding function.  
So its precise definition can be given by a number:


encoding = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s..s(0 ...)

with the right number of parenthesis.

Equivalently I could define encoding by a SK-combinators, or by a lisp  
program. All those definition are provably (in peano arithmetic for  
example) equivalent.









is a generative action such that dreams obtain?


I work in the comp theory, so I postulate that consciousness can be  
manifested through a computation.


   I am thinking that the my self-simulation idea of identity  
requires this, so we agree a tiny bit. I do define computations as  
*any* transformation of information and information I define as "a  
difference between two that makes a difference to a third".


Computation is a more easy concept than "information", which is a bit  
a trash word in which people put usually many different things.  
Computation admits Church's thesis. Information admits many non  
equivalent definitions. It is an important cloud of important notion,  
but I would not use it to define computation, which, thanks to CT, is  
much more easy to define in a mathematical proper way.


Bruno








I would very much like to better understand how you obtain the  
appearance of chance from purely static relations. I ask this as I  
simply do not see how you can claim to explain actions in terms of  
purely non-active relations.  Craig's ideas assume activity at a  
primitive level and thus puts his considerations at odds with  
yours in an almost irreconcilable way.


There are different form of chance. A "real randomness" is given by  
the first person indeterminacy bearing on all computation (aka UD*,  
AKA arithmetic).
Yes, Craig's theory is non-comp. I suspect more and more that you  
defend also non-comp, but unlike Craig, you seem to want to deny  
this.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/






--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Craig,

On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:


in case the special characters don't come out...

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 
0, +, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of 
numbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.


One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a 
self-dividing continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics 
between eidetic dream states (in which dream~numbers escape their 
numerical identities as immersive qualitative experiences) and 
entopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape their dream 
nature as literal algebra-geometries).


I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this, 
even if there is some genuine analogy.


The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They dream 
by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some 
universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively to 
some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Those 
are not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like the 
genome if you want.


Dear Bruno,

   Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which an 
encoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between one set 
and another)


?


How do you define "encoding"? What kind of mathematical entity is it?





is a generative action such that dreams obtain?


I work in the comp theory, so I postulate that consciousness can be 
manifested through a computation.


I am thinking that the my self-simulation idea of identity requires 
this, so we agree a tiny bit. I do define computations as *any* 
transformation of information and information I define as "a difference 
between two that makes a difference to a third".






I would very much like to better understand how you obtain the 
appearance of chance from purely static relations. I ask this as I 
simply do not see how you can claim to explain actions in terms of 
purely non-active relations.  Craig's ideas assume activity at a 
primitive level and thus puts his considerations at odds with yours 
in an almost irreconcilable way.


There are different form of chance. A "real randomness" is given by 
the first person indeterminacy bearing on all computation (aka UD*, 
AKA arithmetic).
Yes, Craig's theory is non-comp. I suspect more and more that you 
defend also non-comp, but unlike Craig, you seem to want to deny this.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/






--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Craig,

On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:


in case the special characters don't come out...

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers,  
0, +, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of  
numbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.


One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self- 
dividing continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between  
eidetic dream states (in which dream~numbers escape their  
numerical identities as immersive qualitative experiences) and  
entopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape their  
dream nature as literal algebra-geometries).


I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand  
this, even if there is some genuine analogy.


The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They  
dream by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some  
universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively  
to some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary.  
Those are not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like  
the genome if you want.


Dear Bruno,

   Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which an  
encoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between one set  
and another)


?



is a generative action such that dreams obtain?


I work in the comp theory, so I postulate that consciousness can be  
manifested through a computation.




I would very much like to better understand how you obtain the  
appearance of chance from purely static relations. I ask this as I  
simply do not see how you can claim to explain actions in terms of  
purely non-active relations.  Craig's ideas assume activity at a  
primitive level and thus puts his considerations at odds with yours  
in an almost irreconcilable way.


There are different form of chance. A "real randomness" is given by  
the first person indeterminacy bearing on all computation (aka UD*,  
AKA arithmetic).
Yes, Craig's theory is non-comp. I suspect more and more that you  
defend also non-comp, but unlike Craig, you seem to want to deny this.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,

On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> in case the special characters don't come out...
>
> I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,
> +, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of
> numbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.
>
> One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self-
> dividing continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between
> eidetic dream states (in which dream~numbers escape their numerical
> identities as immersive qualitative experiences) and entopic non-
> dream states (in which number~dreams escape their dream nature as
> literal algebra-geometries).
>
I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this,
even if there is some genuine analogy.

Think of it like π, except that instead of circumference and  
diameter, there is eidetic-figurative and entopic-literal  
presentation modalities.


Pi = ratio of the length or a circle and its diameter. That is  
understandable.
"eidetic-figurative and entropic-literal presentation modalities." is  
not.








The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They dream
by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some
universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively to
some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Those are
not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like the genome
if you want.

Why would that result in a dream?


Because I work in the comp theory where we come to the idea that  
consciousness can be manifested by abstract relation between numbers,  
as they emulate computation. We have already said "yes" to the doctor.





It seems shrouded in obfuscating self-reference. Why would anything  
that has been encoded ever need to be decoded if the machine can  
fluently process the encoded form?


To store what we learn. The DNA plays already such a role at the  
molecular level. It illustrates also a digital encoding and decoding.




Why would it need any other form - especially if it is all made of  
numbers?


Nobody needs a universe. Why do we do babies?
The "truth" is that we have them, we cannot really avoid them. It is  
like the prime number and the universal machine. Once you have zero  
and + and *, you get Platonia, and a lot of mess in Platonia. It is a  
logical consequence.





What I am saying is that if you are going to invoke a possibility of  
dreams, that has to be grounded in the terms that you are laying out  
as primitive. Why would dreams leap out of mechanical relations?


It is a logical consequence, once you accept the idea that you might  
survive with a digital brain.




Even if there was some purpose for it, how could that actually take  
place - what are the dreamings made of?


Ontologically: nothing take place. All the computations are there.  
Some emulate self-observing machine and the math explain why they have  
to be beffudled by existence and conscience.





My view is that it may be the case that everything that is not  
matter across space is experience through time - by definition,  
ontologically. There is no other form or content possible in the  
cosmos. Numbers are experiences as they must be inferred by  
computational agents and cannot exist independently of them. What my  
formulas do is to propose a precise relation between dream-time  
(including logical algebras) and matter-space (including topological  
geometries). To do this we need to invoke a continuity between them  
which is a perpendicular axis which runs from the literal (tight  
equivalence; induction is accomplished through linear arithmetic  
logic) to the figurative/metaphorical (loose thematic association;  
induction is accomplished through linear logic as well as elliptical  
cross-context leaps).


I don't believe in time, space, cosmos, matter, ...
I explain their appearance by the dream property of numbers,  
relatively to universal numbers.









>
> This continuum f (ॐ(Om)), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private
> first person subjectivity (calling that Aleph ℵ)to infinitely
> discrete/public third person mechanism (calling that Omega Ω), so
> that at ℵ,any given dream is experienced as 99.99…9% dream and
> 0.00…1% number and at Ω (Omega), any given machine or number is
> presented as 99.99…9% number and 0.00…1% dream.
>

?


I'm mapping out this literal to figurative axis, as it modifies the  
axis of subject to object presentations. The more an experience  
extends figuratively/metaphorically, the less it extends literally/ 
mechanically.


That makes some sense.




>
> The halfway point between the ℵ (Aleph) and Ω (Omega) axis is the
> perpendicular axis f (-ॐ(Om)) which is the high and low
> correspondence between the literal dream and figurative number (or
> figurative dream and literal number 

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Craig,

On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:


in case the special characters don't come out...

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0, 
+, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of numbers’, 
interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.


One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self-dividing 
continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream 
states (in which dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as 
immersive qualitative experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in 
which number~dreams escape their dream nature as literal 
algebra-geometries).


I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this, 
even if there is some genuine analogy.


The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They dream 
by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some 
universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively to 
some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Those are 
not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like the genome 
if you want.


Dear Bruno,

Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which an 
encoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between one set and 
another) is a generative action such that dreams obtain? I would very 
much like to better understand how you obtain the appearance of chance 
from purely static relations. I ask this as I simply do not see how you 
can claim to explain actions in terms of purely non-active relations.  
Craig's ideas assume activity at a primitive level and thus puts his 
considerations at odds with yours in an almost irreconcilable way.




snip

--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Craig, 
>
> On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > in case the special characters don't come out... 
> > 
> > I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,   
> > +, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of   
> > numbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this. 
> > 
> > One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self- 
> > dividing continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between   
> > eidetic dream states (in which dream~numbers escape their numerical   
> > identities as immersive qualitative experiences) and entopic non- 
> > dream states (in which number~dreams escape their dream nature as   
> > literal algebra-geometries). 
> > 
> I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this,   
> even if there is some genuine analogy. 
>

Think of it like π, except that instead of circumference and diameter, 
there is eidetic-figurative and entopic-literal presentation modalities.

>
> The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They dream   
> by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some   
> universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively to   
> some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Those are   
> not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like the genome   
> if you want. 
>

Why would that result in a dream? It seems shrouded in obfuscating 
self-reference. Why would anything that has been encoded ever need to be 
decoded if the machine can fluently process the encoded form? Why would it 
need any other form - especially if it is all made of numbers?

What I am saying is that if you are going to invoke a possibility of 
dreams, that has to be grounded in the terms that you are laying out as 
primitive. Why would dreams leap out of mechanical relations? Even if there 
was some purpose for it, how could that actually take place - what are the 
dreamings made of?

My view is that it may be the case that everything that is not matter 
across space is experience through time - by definition, ontologically. 
There is no other form or content possible in the cosmos. Numbers are 
experiences as they must be inferred by computational agents and cannot 
exist independently of them. What my formulas do is to propose a precise 
relation between dream-time (including logical algebras) and matter-space 
(including topological geometries). To do this we need to invoke a 
continuity between them which is a perpendicular axis which runs from the 
literal (tight equivalence; induction is accomplished through linear 
arithmetic logic) to the figurative/metaphorical (loose thematic 
association; induction is accomplished through linear logic *as well as 
*elliptical 
cross-context leaps).


>
>
> > 
> > This continuum f (ॐ(Om)), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private   
> > first person subjectivity (calling that Aleph ℵ)to infinitely   
> > discrete/public third person mechanism (calling that Omega Ω), so   
> > that at ℵ,any given dream is experienced as 99.99…9% dream and   
> > 0.00…1% number and at Ω (Omega), any given machine or number is   
> > presented as 99.99…9% number and 0.00…1% dream. 
> > 
>
> ? 
>


I'm mapping out this literal to figurative axis, as it modifies the axis of 
subject to object presentations. The more an experience extends 
figuratively/metaphorically, the less it extends literally/mechanically.

> 
> > The halfway point between the ℵ (Aleph) and Ω (Omega) axis is the   
> > perpendicular axis f (-ॐ(Om)) which is the high and low   
> > correspondence between the literal dream and figurative number (or   
> > figurative dream and literal number depending on whether you are   
> > using the dream-facing epistemology or the number-facing   
> > epistemology). This axis runs from tight equivalence (“=”   
> > equality) to broadly elliptical potential set membership (“…”   
> > ellipsis) 
> > 
> > So it looks something like this: 
> > 
> > f(ॐ) ⊇ {ℵ “…” ⊥ “=” Ω} 
> > 
> > function (Om) is superset or equal to the continuum ranging from   
> > Aleph to ellipsis perpendicular/orthogonal to the inverse range from   
> > equality to Omega). 
> > 
> > To go further, it could be said that at Ω(Omega), ॐ (Om) expresses   
> > as 10|O (one, zero, line segment, circle referring to the   
> > quantitative algebraic and geometric perpendicular primitives) while   
> > at ℵ (Aleph), ॐ (Om) expresses as 
> > יהוה (tetragrammaton or yod, hay, vov, hay, or in perhaps more   
> > familiar metaphor, ♣♠♥♦(clubs, spades, hearts, diamonds) 
> > 
> > where: 
> > 
> > ♣ clubs (wands) =Fire, spiritual, tactile 
> > ♠ spades (swords) = Air, mental, auditory 
> > ♥ hearts (cups) =Water, emotional, visual 
> > ♦ diamonds (pentacles/coins) = Earth, physical, olfactory-gustatory 
> > 
> > Note that tactile and auditory modalities tune us into ourselves and   
> 

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Craig,

On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:


in case the special characters don't come out...

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,  
+, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of  
numbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.


One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self- 
dividing continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between  
eidetic dream states (in which dream~numbers escape their numerical  
identities as immersive qualitative experiences) and entopic non- 
dream states (in which number~dreams escape their dream nature as  
literal algebra-geometries).


I use such term more literally. I am not sure I can understand this,  
even if there is some genuine analogy.


The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They dream  
by encoding computational state of person, relatively to some  
universal number, which are encoding universal machine relatively to  
some other one, and the initial one can be chosen arbitrary. Those are  
not symbolic number, but real encoding number, a bit like the genome  
if you want.






This continuum f (ॐ(Om)), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private  
first person subjectivity (calling that Aleph ℵ)to infinitely  
discrete/public third person mechanism (calling that Omega Ω), so  
that at ℵ,any given dream is experienced as 99.99…9% dream and  
0.00…1% number and at Ω (Omega), any given machine or number is  
presented as 99.99…9% number and 0.00…1% dream.




?


The halfway point between the ℵ (Aleph) and Ω (Omega) axis is the  
perpendicular axis f (-ॐ(Om)) which is the high and low  
correspondence between the literal dream and figurative number (or  
figurative dream and literal number depending on whether you are  
using the dream-facing epistemology or the number-facing  
epistemology). This axis runs from tight equivalence (“=”  
equality) to broadly elliptical potential set membership (“…”  
ellipsis)


So it looks something like this:

f(ॐ) ⊇ {ℵ “…” ⊥ “=” Ω}

function (Om) is superset or equal to the continuum ranging from  
Aleph to ellipsis perpendicular/orthogonal to the inverse range from  
equality to Omega).


To go further, it could be said that at Ω(Omega), ॐ (Om) expresses  
as 10|O (one, zero, line segment, circle referring to the  
quantitative algebraic and geometric perpendicular primitives) while  
at ℵ (Aleph), ॐ (Om) expresses as
יהוה (tetragrammaton or yod, hay, vov, hay, or in perhaps more  
familiar metaphor, ♣♠♥♦(clubs, spades, hearts, diamonds)


where:

♣ clubs (wands) =Fire, spiritual, tactile
♠ spades (swords) = Air, mental, auditory
♥ hearts (cups) =Water, emotional, visual
♦ diamonds (pentacles/coins) = Earth, physical, olfactory-gustatory

Note that tactile and auditory modalities tune us into ourselves and  
each others sensemaking (selves and minds), while the visual and  
olfactory/gustatory sense modalities are about objectifying realism  
of the world (egos or objectified selves/self-images and bodies). It  
should be obvious that ♣ clubs (wands) and ♠ spades (swords) are  
stereotypically masculine and abstracting forces, while ♥ hearts  
(cups) and ♦ diamonds (pentacles/coins) are stereotypically  
feminine objectified fields.


Sorry for the mumbo jumbo, but it is the only way to be non- 
reductive when approaching the qualitative side.


I don't think so. Aristotle invented modal logic to treat in the  
quantitative way non reductive qualitative notion.




We can’t pretend to talk about the eidetic, dream like  
perpendicular of number logic while using the purely empirical terms  
of arithmetic reduction. We need symbols that can only refer to  
named qualities rather than enumerated quantities.


This is exactly what happen when you define the first person by the  
knower. Bp & p, or if you prefer


provable(p) and true(p),

gives a modality which can provably be shown qualitative, and non  
formalizable in arithmetic. It leads to a logic (know as S4Grz) which  
describes something which is absolutely impossible to reduce to any  
number relations or even anything third person describable notion,  
even infinite one.


You might think I just described it, by Bp & p, or by "provable(p) and  
true(p)", but this is not the case, as I use some of your intuition  
about truth, which cannot be arithmetized by itself, by a famous  
result of Gödel and Tarski (independently).
It happens that we do have a good intuition of many truth, and machine  
can indeed describe better and better approximations of the truth  
concept, but the limit of it, used here, cannot be. So by using both  
the comp hypothesis, and by studying simple (Löbian) machine (simpler  
than us) we can develop a formal (quantitative in some sense, at some  
level, from some point of view) theory concerning the non formal, and  
even non-formalizable-at-all-by-the-machine, qualities that machine  
can still refer about. And this can be used to 

Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Craig Weinberg]

in case the special characters don't come out...

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0, +, and 
*, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of numbers’, interviewing 
Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.

One single irreducible digit ॐ (Om) which represents a self-dividing 
continuum of infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream states 
(in which dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as immersive 
qualitative experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in which 
number~dreams escape their dream nature as literal algebra-geometries).

This continuum f (ॐ(Om)), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private first 
person subjectivity (calling that Aleph *ℵ*)to infinitely discrete/public 
third person mechanism (calling that Omega *Ω*), so that at *ℵ*,any given 
dream is experienced as 99.99…9% dream and 0.00…1% number and at *Ω*(Omega), 
any given machine or number is presented as 99.99…9% number and 
0.00…1% dream.

The halfway point between the *ℵ *(Aleph) and* Ω* (Omega) axis is the 
perpendicular axis f (-ॐ(Om)) which is the high and low correspondence 
between the literal dream and figurative number (or figurative dream and 
literal number depending on whether you are using the dream-facing 
epistemology or the number-facing epistemology). This axis runs from tight 
equivalence (“=” equality) to broadly elliptical potential set membership 
(“…” ellipsis)

So it looks something like this:

f(ॐ) ⊇ *{ℵ** “…**” ⊥** “=**” Ω**}*

function (Om) is superset or equal to the continuum ranging from Aleph to 
ellipsis perpendicular/orthogonal to the inverse range from equality to 
Omega).

To go further, it could be said that at *Ω*(Omega), ॐ (Om) expresses as *
10|O* (one, zero, line segment, circle referring to the quantitative 
algebraic and geometric perpendicular primitives) while at *ℵ* (Aleph), ॐ 
(Om) expresses as
יהוה (tetragrammaton or yod, hay, vov, hay, or in perhaps more familiar 
metaphor, ♣♠♥♦(clubs, spades, hearts, diamonds)

where:

♣ clubs (wands) =Fire, spiritual, tactile
♠ spades (swords) = Air, mental, auditory
♥ hearts (cups) =Water, emotional, visual
♦ diamonds (pentacles/coins) = Earth, physical, olfactory-gustatory

Note that tactile and auditory modalities tune us into ourselves and each 
others sensemaking (selves and minds), while the visual and 
olfactory/gustatory sense modalities are about objectifying realism of the 
world (egos or objectified selves/self-images and bodies). It should be 
obvious that ♣ clubs (wands) and ♠ spades (swords) are stereotypically 
masculine and abstracting forces, while ♥ hearts (cups) and ♦ diamonds 
(pentacles/coins) are stereotypically feminine objectified fields.

Sorry for the mumbo jumbo, but it is the only way to be non-reductive when 
approaching the qualitative side. We can’t pretend to talk about the 
eidetic, dream like perpendicular of number logic while using the purely 
empirical terms of arithmetic reduction. We need symbols that can only 
refer to named qualities rather than enumerated quantities.

Let the ignoring and insulting begin!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/9c8ON5mLz8YJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

[Craig Weinberg]

Hi Bruno,

I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0, +, and 
*, right?) and then your concept of 'the dreams of numbers', interviewing 
Lobian Machines, etc and came up with this.

One single irreducible digit ॐ which represents a self-dividing continuum 
of infinite perpendicular dialectics between eidetic dream states (in which 
dream~numbers escape their numerical identities as immersive qualitative 
experiences) and entopic non-dream states (in which number~dreams escape 
their dream nature as literal algebra-geometries).

This continuum f(ॐ), runs from infinitely solipsistic/private first person 
subjectivity (calling that Aleph *ℵ*)* *to infinitely discrete/public third 
person mechanism (calling that Omega *Ω*), so that at *ℵ*,any given dream 
is experienced as 99.99...9% dream and 0.00...1% number and at *Ω*, any 
given machine or number is presented as 99.99...9% number and 0.00...1% 
dream.

The halfway point between the *ℵ *and* **Ω* axis is the perpendicular axis 
f(-ॐ) which is the high and low correspondence between the literal dream 
and figurative number (or figurative dream and literal number depending on 
whether you are using the dream-facing epistemology or the number-facing 
epistemology). This axis runs from tight equivalence ("=") to broadly 
elliptical potential set membership ("...")

So it looks something like this:

f(ॐ) ⊇ *{ℵ** "...**" ⊥** "=**" Ω**}*

To go further, it could be said that at *Ω*(Omega), ॐ (Om) expresses as *
10|O* (one, zero, line segment, circle referring to the quantitative 
algebraic and geometric perpendicular primitives) while at *ℵ* (Aleph), 
ॐ(Om) expresses as
יהוה (tetragrammaton or yod, hay, vov, hay, or in perhaps more familiar 
metaphor, ♣**♠♥**♦(clubs, spades, hearts, diamonds)

where:

♣ clubs (wands) =Fire, spiritual, tactile
♠ spades (swords) = Air, mental, auditory
♥ hearts (cups) =Water, emotional, visual
♦ diamonds (pentacles/coins) = Earth, physical, olfactory-gustatory

Note that tactile and auditory modalities tune us into ourselves and each 
others sensemaking (selves and minds), while the visual and 
olfactory/gustatory sense modalities are about objectifying realism of the 
world (egos or objectified selves/self-images and bodies). It should be 
obvious that ♣ clubs (wands) and ♠ spades (swords) are stereotypically 
masculine and abstracting forces, while ♥ hearts (cups) and ♦ diamonds 
(pentacles/coins) are stereotypically feminine objectified fields.

Sorry for the mumbo jumbo, but it is the only way to be non-reductive when 
approaching the qualitative side. We can't pretend to talk about the 
eidetic, dream like perpendicular of number logic while using the purely 
empirical terms of arithmetic reduction. We need symbols that can only 
refer to named qualities rather than enumerated quantities.

Let the ignoring and insulting begin!

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1BiqAleIH0kJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.