Re: substitution level

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2017, at 18:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:

On 06 Jun 2017, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:


On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis.


Yes.

Of course, it can

"do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the
subject,

that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a
genuine

random bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum computer, you  
need to

emulate the duplication of the observer, like in the WM  
duplication.


Well ok, but this part is easy to solve on a classical computer:
https://www.random.org/

:)


Using atmospheric noise as an oracle.

OK, it is better than than using PI or sqrt(2), but is really a  
computer
with an oracle (which by the way has the same theology than a  
computer
without oracle, but this is just a note in passing).


On the other hand (and I think Russell said it before here), I am
convinced that randomness plays a role in creativity, and there is
some evidence from the evolutionary computation community that true
randomness is better than pseudo-random generators for this purpose.


It is a complex issue. From the strict theoretical view, it can be  
proved
that the class of problem solvable by a machine using a "true"  
random oracle
is bigger than with any pseudo-random oracle. But the proof I saw is
second-recursion ironical, which means that we need to go in Heaven  
to
really solve those problem.

If you can find the reference, I would like to take a look.


KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and  
Control, 57, pp. 40-47.






That can play a role in the derivation of physics, though, as the UD*
introduce a random oracle in physics. It might be the usual quantum
indeterminacy.

This random oracle would come from FPI, correct?


Yes. Of course UD* is not "pure random oracle", as the FPI is  
structured by the first person pov on the leaves  of UD*. But it  
contains it. That makes it very different from the white noise of the  
"pure" iteration of the self-duplication.

Best,

Bruno







Now, prove me that random.org really use the oracle. May be it  
uses Pi or
1/Pi. Not sure we could see the difference, if they change the seed
regularly.


There is an independent master thesis on this, but I'm not willing  
to
read more than 100 pages on the subject and take their word for  
it :)

It cannot be proved, of course, but there are statistical methods to
measure the "quality" of random numbers. Overall, I believe  
random.org
passes several independent tests as is well-regarded.


Oh, it is cute for sure. I did need some energy to sop generating  
random
number ...

:)




Well, thanks for letting me know that you are not serious :)


I was not :)

But if you want real randomness and do not trust a third party,  
there
are other options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator



You really seems to want me to become an addict!  :)

Sorry! But I understand, I love random numbers too.



but with comp it would have consequences regarding

our "insertion" in reality, so to say. Correct?



I am not sure of what you mean exactly. It would not change the  
physics,
but

allow us to exploit more directly the FPI.


Yes, I meant simply that our mind would supervene on more branches.


And we would become able to compute Fourier transform on the  
result of
some
computations made in all branches. According to Deustch we would  
be able
to
detect the "parallel universes".  We would be able to find  
quickly a
needle
in a stack, and I would have less problem to find my glasses on my
dekstop
:)


:)

I am completely agnostic on this,

but I am not convince by the current argument that there are  
evidences
that

a brain could be a quantum computer. They might be right, but I  
wait for

more evidences.


Me too.

Elementary arithmetic is full of quantum computing machineries. I  
even

suspect that the prime number distribution encodes a universal  
quantum

chaotic dovetailing,



Can you explain what you mean by chaotic dovetailing?



Have you heard about quantum chaos?


No, interesting. I'm starting to read about it. I always loved
standard chaos theory. It was one of the first things that  
profoundly
changed my map of reality.


A not to bad intro is

"http://assets.cambridge.org/97805210/27151/excerpt/9780521027151_excerpt.pdf 
"


Thanks!



OK.







Here I meant classical usual dovetailing

on the classical emulation of quantum chaos. From the FPI, it can
converge

on "genuine" quantum chaos. There are some evidences, related to  
the
Riemann

hypothesis that the "spectrum" or he critical zero of zeta might
correspond

to some quantum chaoitic hamiltonian's eigenvalue. I read that a  
long
time

ago. If quantum chaos is Turing universal, it could even be
quantum-Turing

universal, and generate a quantum universal dovetailer. But that  
would
not

solve the mind-body problem. The machine-theological solution can  
work
only

if we can explain why the measure which would be associated to that

particular quantum chaos win the arithmetical (classical,  
mechanist) FPI

problem. The Rieman hypothesis would help but is far from  
sufficiant.


I am too ignorant on number theory to understand this.


I might say some words on this when I have more time, but I will  
resist
for
now.





but even if that is true, that should not be used to

justify physics, because we would get the quanta, and not the  
qualia

(unless

the Riemann hypothesis is shown undecidable in PA (and thus true!).


Only Penrose asks for an explicit non computable physical  
reduction of

the

waves, with some role for gravity, and is authentically

non-computationalist. Penrose is coherent with computationalism.  
He keep

physics as fundamental, but accept the price: the abandon of  
mechanism.

But

his argument aganist mechanism is not valid, and already defeated  
by

machines like PA, ZF, etc.



You mean is maligned statement that the human brain is capable of

accessing truths that lie beyond the Gödelian veil?



I mean all Löbian machine are capable of accessing truths that  
lie to the

Gödelian veil, and use this to refute Penrose. Already in 1931,  
Gödel

realized that PA (or equivalently his own theory P) was proving  
its own

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, and is perfectly able to  
sort out
his

own undecidable proposition. Gödel's proof is constructive. It  
limits the

formalism, but shows them how to improve themselves accordingly,  
leading
to

transfinite possible self-improvement. The machine can find its
undecidable

statement, and bet on them with the interrogation mark, or  
discuss them
as

mysteries (consciousness).


And what leads to machine to drop the interrogation mark?


The confusion between two hypostases. Either willingly, to make  
easy
profit,
like with the clergy, which can confuse man and god for example, or
unwillingly, by repeating lies, or by pure ignorance. You can see  
the
machine's enlightenment as the realization that G1* proves the
equivalence
of all hypostases:

G1* proves p  <->  Bp  <-> (Bp & p)  <-> (Bp & Dt)  <-> (Bp & Dt  
& p)
(p is restricted to the sigma propositions, the leaves of the UD).

But all those equivalence are solution of the formula B x -> ~x.  
It is
true
only in God's eye, and false on the terrestrial plane. G1 does  
not prove
any
of those equivalence, with some exception, like p -> Bp (keep in  
mind
that
true sigma proposition are always provable by a universal system).




Of course, they cannot prove them, nor even

assert them as new axiom, but they can understand them, and use  
them,

notably by becoming "mystical" and "religious",


And artists too, I would say...


And poets. Certainly (as long as they do not believe doing  
science in the
process).



and distinguishing *their*

science from *their* religion, in the scientific way, like they can
develop

the non-monotonical layers of mind on which Gödel's  
incompleteness will
not

apply: they need only to be able to say something like "Oops, I was
wrong",

which is the beginning of the manifestation of intelligence/doubt
(already

present in the Löb formula).


What can one base such bets on? It seems to me that most  
"betting" is
more or less a Bayesian process, based on priors that are fine- 
tuned
throughout life in an endless process.


I feel myself more frequentist than Bayesian. Bayes works when we  
have
good
reason to have the indifference principle true, but that tend to  
exist
only
in mathematics.


Humm... but the principle of indifference can be used to bootstrap  
an
iterative process, where the prior is better approximated as new  
data
becomes available. I would not be surprised if our brain does that a
lot.


Interesting. I have not much clues on this. In many real-life  
situation, I
am skeptical on prior, but that does not mean that there are not  
situation
where it does make sense.





For example, I suspect that the
main difference between adherents of different ideologies is that  
they
have different priors for questions such as ("how likely is one to
become rich while being ethical"; "how likely is the government  
to be
corrupt"; etc.). How does one estimate probabilities beyond the  
veil?


I would say that there are no probabilities at all in such  
context, only
credibilities and plausibilities.
I will judge a government corrupt when he lies on something for a  
long
time,
or make dubious propositions. It will be a personal judgment,  
unless I
can
rove that it lies on something specific.


Ok, but you think it's a lie for some reason. Couldn't that come  
from
other probabilities that you estimate?


By default, the normal gaussian on almost all physical or concrete
measurements, yes.

Ok.

Best,
Telmo.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.