Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Hi Bruce, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jun 2015, at 00:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that Bruce Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock computing ... Where do you think Intel get the silicon for

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jun 2015, at 00:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that Bruce Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock computing ... Where do you think Intel get the silicon for their chips..

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 13 Jun 2015, at 00:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that Bruce Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock computing ... Where do you think Intel get the silicon for their chips...? Aaaah

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 12 Jun 2015, at 22:34, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2015 1:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: You wrote: (Brent): But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable. (Bruno): Exactly, that is

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

John Mikes wrote: (Brent): But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable. (Bruno): Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the "self- referentially correct" machine theory. ... The entire train of sophistication is based on 'hu

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is bizarre that some people tarnish the effort of people working in some field, and admits not being interested in the question. may be Bruce just confuse physics and metaphysical physicalism. Bruno

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless,

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2015 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You claim that physics emerges from the UD, I claim only that IF comp is true, then physics HAVE to emerge from the UD. But I don't think you've shown that. Comp1 doesn't imply that all possible compu

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:03, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2015 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: nor have you produced a conscious program or computer. Here is one: 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 F first order arithmetical formula: (F(0) & Ax(F(x)

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What is the need to invoke a universe when we might perhaps be on an explanation of where the appearance of the universe, and consciousness/knowledge come from, in a testable way? That is exactly my criticism of your theory. I thin

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: It is weird that John Clark does not intervene here to say that Bruce Kellet would be a millionaire if he was able to make a rock computing ... Where do you think Intel get the silicon for their chips...? Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 1:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: You wrote: /(Brent):/ /But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable*.*/ /(Bruno):/ /Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the "self-referentially correct" machine theory./ /.../ / / The

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

You wrote: *(Brent):* *But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable.* *(Bruno):* *Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the "self-referentially correct" machine theory.* *...* The entire train of sophistication is based on 'human

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is bizarre that some people tarnish the effort of people working in some field, and admits not being interested in the question. may be Bruce just confuse physics and metaphysical physicalism. Bruno One might be interested in the idea that comput

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You claim that physics emerges from the UD, I claim only that IF comp is true, then physics HAVE to emerge from the UD. But I don't think you've shown that. Comp1 doesn't imply that all possible computations exist. That's a separate assumption yo

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: nor have you produced a conscious program or computer. Here is one: 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 F first order arithmetical formula: (F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x). That programs is as

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenge

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:47, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its intera

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 Jun 2015, at 03:06, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physi

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 14:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non- commutation? For the "yes-no" operator in general. They are given and construct from the quantization ([]<>A) in the logic Z1*. It is rather

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 Jun 2015, at 03:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett I suspect that "physics is not computable" is the /end/ result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a /reductio/ on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes t

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:05, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the real

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non- commutation? For the "yes-no" operator in general. What quantum operator is that? Frequency operator, a bi

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the n

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:20, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wr

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:43, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp makes physics NOT emulable by any machine a priori. Now if physics is not emulable by any machine, how is it to be recovered from the computations of the dovetailer? By the FPI on all computations c

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett LizR wrote: I suspect that "physics is not computable" is the /end/ result of Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a /reductio/ on the notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computabl

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 13:03, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/10/2015 4:55 PM, LizR wrote: > > I suspect that "physics is not computable" is the *end* result of > Brnuo's argument (comp2) - which is supposed to be a *reductio* on the > notion of comp1. So comp1 assumes that physics is computable, and that >

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 12:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> meekerdb wrote: >> On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? >> >> No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not >> co

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 4:55 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett > wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 4:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain?

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Can you explain why such interaction is not computable? No, I was relying on your assertion that physics is not computable - which would entail that brain processes are not com

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brai

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Do you ever get the feeling that this is all going round in circles? That > 'comp' is going nowhere? Comp appears to go somewhere quite specific. What go round in circles tend to be the arguments against it, which get repeated regularly. I list

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 11 June 2015 at 11:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > meekerdb wrote: > >> On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: >>> On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. Wha

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 June 2015 at 20:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > LizR wrote: >> >>> On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>>That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness >>>supervenes on th

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 5:41 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computati

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 4:00 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific pur

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer sci

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp makes physics NOT emulable by any machine a priori. Now if physics is not emulable by any machine, how is it to be recovered from the computations of the dovetailer? By the FPI on all computations continuing the "here-and-now" (defined indexica

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/10/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non-commutation? For the "yes-no" operator in general. They are given and construct from the quantization ([]<>A) in the logic Z1*. It is rather long to describe, and you have shown no intere

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 15:13 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the >> interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine >> interpretin

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett Quentin Anciaux wrote: Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the interpreter... the rock itself is missing the machine interpreting the state and relating all the sequence of states

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > >: >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: OK. For what set of quantum operators have you demonstrated non-commutation? For the "yes-no" operator in general. What quantum operator is that? And with what other quantum operator does it fail to commute. They are gi

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of your teleportation thoug

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confus

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: >

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a univ

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine.

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over th

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We might defined nomological inconsistency by [i] p & [i] ~p, for [i] being a material hypostase. ?? What role does i play in the above? Are you assuming i implies p? i is for 1, 2, 3 in [1]p = []p & p

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Are you sure it is not the interaction with God? Can you expl

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: As Brent has suggested. You simply contradict yourself here. You say "It [comp] does not change physics", and "If comp change the content of physics, and nature follows physic

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 Jun 2015, at 05:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of your teleportation thought experiments lead

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of your teleportation thought experiments leading to FPI. It was readily shown that such thought

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancompu

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences. Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these quite simple matters. The neuro-science are

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett > wrote: That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? Consci

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/9/2015 11:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We might defined nomological inconsistency by [i] p & [i] ~p, for [i] being a material hypostase. ?? What role does i play in the above? Are you assuming i implies p? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing emulable in the brain? Its interaction with the universe. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the universe is. But in that case you've just emulated every

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: As Brent has suggested. You simply contradict yourself here. You say "It [comp] does not change physics", and "If comp change the content of physics, and nature follows physics, it will be comp which has to be abandoned." The

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on > the physical brain So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to Maudlin and the MGA? -- You received this message because you are subscribed t

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: If not, there is no

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be describe

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/9/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for unlimited pancomputationalism implies this. I am not convince by that argument. Show me

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be described mathematically and the structure

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations. What? Reference? You mean the brain is not Turing emulable? Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of y

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be described mathematically and the structure of arithmetic or mathematics themselves. Yes. Quite importan

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote: What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of course it does, even though

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of cours

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic per se, and consequently nothing can 'eme

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations. What? Reference? You mean the brain is not Turing emulable? Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of your brain can be emulated by a computer does n

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of course it does, even though the whole 4D structure is "al

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that can be described mathematically and the structure of arithmetic or mathematics themselves. Yes. Qui

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On Monday, June 8, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block universe >>> certain structure was necessary -- >>> >> >> Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in the sens

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to experience time. But of course it does, even though the whole 4D structure is "already there" in s

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block universe certain structure was necessary -- Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in the sense that all you need

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic per se, and consequently nothing can 'emerge' from arithmetic, since emergence is

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: My point was that in order for time to emerge from a block universe certain structure was necessary -- Well, this is doirectly false with comp, in the sense that all you need is the emulation of a brain of a person believing

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic per se, and consequently nothing can 'emerge' from arithmetic, since emergence is a temporal concept. No it isn't, not in

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > You started with Tegmark's idea that time and events are emergent from an > underlying timeless mathematical structure. My point was that in order for > time to emerge from a block universe certain structure was necessary -- we > need a 4-dim manifo

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 6 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: LizR wrote: This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that is still being debated. Tegmark's "mathematical

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: On 6 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that is still being debated. Tegmark's "mathematical universe hypothesis" suggests that time

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that >> is still being debated. Tegmark's "mathematical universe hypothesis" >> suggests that time and events are emergent from an underlying timeless >> mathematic

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

LizR wrote: This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that is still being debated. Tegmark's "mathematical universe hypothesis" suggests that time and events are emergent from an underlying timeless mathematical structure. To take something that is (hopefully) less c

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

This is true if events have an existence apart from maths. However, that is still being debated. Tegmark's "mathematical universe hypothesis" suggests that time and events are emergent from an underlying timeless mathematical structure. To take something that is (hopefully) less contentious, the b