subject:"Re\: If it's all math, then where does math come from\?"


On 3 Mar 2014, at 6:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 
 On 03 Mar 2014, at 08:32, Kim Jones wrote:
 
 
 On 2 Mar 2014, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 
 On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote:
 
 
 
 Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
 
 On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.
 
 Bruno
 
 How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers.
 
 Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn 
 mathematician :)
 
 I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep and 
 profound though.
 
 
 Yes. Tell me: are the following equivalent statements to a literally-minded 
 stubborn mathematician like you:
 
 4 + 1 = 5
 
 1 + 4 = 5
 
 2 + 3 = 5
 
 3 + 2 = 5
 
 They are equivalent in many senses, and not equivalent in many other senses.
 
 They are equivalent semantically, but then with classical semantics, all true 
 statement are equivalent.
 I mean that if you have the truth that 4+1 = 5 then 1+4=5. That is: (4+1= 5 
 - 1+4=5) is true.
 
 They are deductively equivalent in RA, PA, ZF, etc. because such theories can 
 prove the equivalence above.
 
 They are not equivalent in any procedural sense. adding 1 to 4 is not the 
 same thing than adding 4 to 1. It happens that the result is the same, but 
 the procedure is not.
 
 In fact equivalent means nothing, if you don't stipulate the relation of 
 equivalence applied.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 because to a lateral-thinking, alternative-seeking musical thinker like moi 
 they are not.
 
 OK. But I need your equivalence relation.



Equivalent in the “musical sense” would mean strict invariance “to the ear”. 




 
 
 
 
 You only have to perform (ie clap or tap out)  4 + 1 followed by 1 + 4 to 
 see ( ie hear - ratiocinate) that they are not equivalent in the musical 
 sense.
 
 OK, in the musical sense, assuming + introduce a time delay in the claps, 
 they are not.



“ + “  adds no time delay. All the numbers are “butt to butt”. A time delay 
would signify a number. Curiously, the only sonic way you can perform 4 + 1 is 
to differentiate these two entities somehow. We do this by making the first 
clap of any group loud and all successive claps soft. So 4 + 1 comes out as (F 
= ‘forte’ loud, p = ‘piano’ soft) FpppFFpppFFpppFF  etc.

Try 3 + 2  (X3) and swap immediately to 2 + 3 (X2)

Comes out as:

FppFpFppFpFppFpFpFppFpFpp   (remember no gabs between claps. A gap is a number. 
Silence is structured in music.)

Do it really fast and continually and then later on smoke a joint and listen to 
Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” which you have kind of just prepared your neurons 
for.
 
 
 
 Give me  a shout if you cannot clap these sentences accurately.
 
 Actually, your clap view of numbers make 1+x non equivalent with x+1 useful 
 for the infinite ordinals.
 
 1 + omega = omega
 
 that is clap followed by clap clap clap clap ... is considered as equivalent 
 to clap clap clap ...
 The + does not add delay, for the ordinal, unless there are an infinity, 
 and so:
 
 omega + 1 is not = to omega,
 
 clap, clap, clap, clap, ,  clap ≠  clap, clap, clap, clap, ,
 
 That's a different rhythm indeed.
 
 Bruno


Yes. Actually, an interesting “law” of music is that when dealing with 
isochronic stresses “beats” - the invisible number structure that orders all 
music linearly (can be explicit or virtually undiscernible depending on the 
music)
is that STRONG is always followed by WEAK. 

Thus, ‘1’ is ALWAYS a strong (ie loud) beat. With a field of 3 beats 
(‘waltz-time’) this gets interesting because you now have FppFppFpp which when 
you perform it suggests a circle. The old conductors would wave their arms in a 
circle to conduct 3/4 time in the past. What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the 
bar that precisely, irrefutably describes to my mind a circle?

K

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



Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Mar 2014, at 09:50, Kim Jones wrote:



On 3 Mar 2014, at 6:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 03 Mar 2014, at 08:32, Kim Jones wrote:



On 2 Mar 2014, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote:




Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.

Bruno


How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers.


Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded  
stubborn mathematician :)


I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep  
and profound though.



Yes. Tell me: are the following equivalent statements to a  
literally-minded stubborn mathematician like you:


4 + 1 = 5

1 + 4 = 5

2 + 3 = 5

3 + 2 = 5


They are equivalent in many senses, and not equivalent in many  
other senses.


They are equivalent semantically, but then with classical  
semantics, all true statement are equivalent.
I mean that if you have the truth that 4+1 = 5 then 1+4=5. That is:  
(4+1= 5 - 1+4=5) is true.


They are deductively equivalent in RA, PA, ZF, etc. because such  
theories can prove the equivalence above.


They are not equivalent in any procedural sense. adding 1 to 4 is  
not the same thing than adding 4 to 1. It happens that the result  
is the same, but the procedure is not.


In fact equivalent means nothing, if you don't stipulate the  
relation of equivalence applied.









because to a lateral-thinking, alternative-seeking musical thinker  
like moi they are not.


OK. But I need your equivalence relation.




Equivalent in the “musical sense” would mean strict invariance  
“to the ear”.










You only have to perform (ie clap or tap out)  4 + 1 followed by 1  
+ 4 to see ( ie hear - ratiocinate) that they are not equivalent  
in the musical sense.


OK, in the musical sense, assuming + introduce a time delay in  
the claps, they are not.




“ + “  adds no time delay. All the numbers are “butt to  
butt”. A time delay would signify a number. Curiously, the only  
sonic way you can perform 4 + 1 is to differentiate these two  
entities somehow. We do this by making the first clap of any group  
loud and all successive claps soft. So 4 + 1 comes out as (F =  
‘forte’ loud, p = ‘piano’ soft) FpppFFpppFFpppFF  etc.


Try 3 + 2  (X3) and swap immediately to 2 + 3 (X2)

Comes out as:

FppFpFppFpFppFpFpFppFpFpp   (remember no gabs between claps. A gap  
is a number. Silence is structured in music.)


Do it really fast and continually and then later on smoke a joint  
and listen to Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” which you have kind of  
just prepared your neurons for.


I think this is used in musinum.


http://reglos.de/musinum/









Give me  a shout if you cannot clap these sentences accurately.


Actually, your clap view of numbers make 1+x non equivalent with x 
+1 useful for the infinite ordinals.


1 + omega = omega

that is clap followed by clap clap clap clap ... is considered as  
equivalent to clap clap clap ...
The + does not add delay, for the ordinal, unless there are an  
infinity, and so:


omega + 1 is not = to omega,

clap, clap, clap, clap, ,  clap ≠  clap, clap, clap,  
clap, ,


That's a different rhythm indeed.

Bruno



Yes. Actually, an interesting “law” of music is that when dealing  
with isochronic stresses “beats” - the invisible number structure  
that orders all music linearly (can be explicit or virtually  
undiscernible depending on the music)

is that STRONG is always followed by WEAK.

Thus, ‘1’ is ALWAYS a strong (ie loud) beat. With a field of 3  
beats (‘waltz-time’) this gets interesting because you now have  
FppFppFpp which when you perform it suggests a circle. The old  
conductors would wave their arms in a circle to conduct 3/4 time in  
the past. What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that  
precisely, irrefutably describes to my mind a circle?


You tell me.

Bruno




K








K

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Kim Jones

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 3 Mar 2014, at 8:53 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that precisely, irrefutably 
 describes to my mind a circle?
 
 You tell me.
 
 Bruno

Sure. I think it is this:

http://youtu.be/AP_CSQgBPpQ

The angel and the devil both pumping The Wheel of Fortune. Note that once you 
pull on the wheel, it turns. This generates fate. Could a triangle do the 
trick as well?

K

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:



 On 3 Mar 2014, at 8:53 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that precisely, irrefutably
 describes to my mind a circle?


 You tell me.

 Bruno


 Sure. I think it is this:

 http://youtu.be/AP_CSQgBPpQ

 The angel and the devil both pumping The Wheel of Fortune. Note that once
 you pull on the wheel, it turns. This generates fate. Could a triangle do
 the trick as well?


If you spin the triangle along an extra dimension and want to avoid the 4
corners of a pyramid, keeping things 3, you get a cone :-) Perhaps the
cone of the fate of the waltz, without taking these linguistic tags too
seriously.

I guess 3 is rhythmically round for its innate properties, including the
vicinity of two overly symmetric neighbors: 2 and 4. Usually, you'd think
the even values are rounder and feminine and odd ones the opposite, but 2
and 4 are quite the male tyrants of symmetry. If they managed to eliminate
3, we have no more waltzes, or children skipping in the *1*-2-3-*1*-2-3
from side to side, instead of the marching, symmetry-obsessed gait of 2 and
4.

For the unconvinced: draw a circle in the air continuously and count 1-2-3
over and over, hitting 12 o'clock (or any distinct spot of your circle),
every time you hit 1, in your counting. Now try this with counting to 2.
Speed things up a bit and you see that 2 will quickly reduce itself to some
back-and-forth thing and make your circles tend towards less roundness.
Similar with four.

But three keeps your circles and the skipping/dancing we do round: a boy
skipping, or having a rounder walk, is seen as effeminate by bigots. It's
consistent from this procedural rhythmical perspective that π is some kind
of 3. If you want a song that evokes spins, you need 3 here.

A carousel spinning with music in 4s or 2s is just wrong. Complain to the
operator. Their ride will be more attractive and correct on this level ;-)
PGC




 K

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


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?





 On 4 Mar 2014, at 3:07 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 
 On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
 
 
 On 3 Mar 2014, at 8:53 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 What is it, Bruno, about 3 beats to the bar that precisely, irrefutably 
 describes to my mind a circle?
 
 You tell me.
 
 Bruno
 
 Sure. I think it is this:
 
 http://youtu.be/AP_CSQgBPpQ
 
 The angel and the devil both pumping The Wheel of Fortune. Note that once 
 you pull on the wheel, it turns. This generates fate. Could a triangle do 
 the trick as well?
 
 If you spin the triangle along an extra dimension and want to avoid the 4 
 corners of a pyramid, keeping things 3, you get a cone :-) Perhaps the cone 
 of the fate of the waltz, without taking these linguistic tags too seriously.
 
 I guess 3 is rhythmically round for its innate properties, including the 
 vicinity of two overly symmetric neighbors: 2 and 4. Usually, you'd think the 
 even values are rounder and feminine and odd ones the opposite, but 2 and 4 
 are quite the male tyrants of symmetry. If they managed to eliminate 3, we 
 have no more waltzes, or children skipping in the 1-2-3-1-2-3 from side to 
 side, instead of the marching, symmetry-obsessed gait of 2 and 4. 
 
 For the unconvinced: draw a circle in the air continuously and count 1-2-3 
 over and over, hitting 12 o'clock (or any distinct spot of your circle), 
 every time you hit 1, in your counting. Now try this with counting to 2. 
 Speed things up a bit and you see that 2 will quickly reduce itself to some 
 back-and-forth thing and make your circles tend towards less roundness. 
 Similar with four. 
 
 But three keeps your circles and the skipping/dancing we do round: a boy 
 skipping, or having a rounder walk, is seen as effeminate by bigots. It's 
 consistent from this procedural rhythmical perspective that π is some kind of 
 3. If you want a song that evokes spins, you need 3 here. 
 
 A carousel spinning with music in 4s or 2s is just wrong. Complain to the 
 operator. Their ride will be more attractive and correct on this level ;-) PGC
 
  

That's all right on the money, PGC. Recall now the scene of the orbital space 
station in Kubrick's 2001 - he chose to illustrate this gigantic wheeling 
object in space with Strauss's Blue Danube waltz which of course has nothing 
whatsoever to do with space stations, but could not be replaced in that movie 
with any music that works better. Curiously, Kubrick commissioned Hollywood 
composer Alex North to compose an entire bespoke score for this film which 
Kubrick rejected completely when he heard bits of it. I too have heard it 
(Jerry Goldsmith had it recorded and released a lot later) and the cue North 
wrote for this scene is paltry compared to the effect of the Strauss. 

Concerning 3, circles and waltzes, the waltz itself is surely a kind of dance 
of the solar system in that each couple turn around each other in small 
circles like planets and moons orbiting each other while the entire dance floor 
wheels around in a greater circle like the solar system or indeed the galaxy

K



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

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread LizR

On 3 March 2014 20:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at
 least trying to get his head around the big questions, like why is there
 something rather than nothing? In fact his is the *only* satisfactory
 answer to that question I've ever come across, which is quite an
 achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.

 Tegmark fails to see that his hypothesis is a very old (even if ignored)
 theorem.


You mean Plato's idea? If so, he has updated it somewhat. Or if not...?


 And physics is not a mathematical structure among others, but a
 psychological/theological phenomenon arising from computer-science laws,
 that is arithmetical laws.


Well, imho Tegmark has a problem with consciousness in his theory, which he
seems to rather brush over. (But in that he's doing no worse than the
materialist, is he?)


 It is a physicist progress in the comp's consequence, but we are far in
 advance, in this list, to which Tegmark participated, but he missed both
 philosophy of mind and logic.


If Max participated in this list then his theory doesnt look quite so
clever! I didn't realise that. But he is at least popularising ideas that I
assume are fairly esoteric for most people, even physicists and
philosophers? Which I would think is a good thing?


 Then a mistery: his last paper on consciousness regresses a lot from his
 paper and book. He seems to still miss the FPI, even if Jason's quote of
 Tegmark seems to show he get the step 3 that is the FPI, (but I explained
 it to him,  so his lack of reference is a bit sad from the human pov. He
 follows a common tradition here, like Chalmers).

 You mean his idea about consciousness as a state of matter? I read the
paper but I didn't really take much away from it in the end. He seemed to
go off on a tangent (or several) and I got a bit confused.

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread LizR

Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression
that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar,
not 3?

Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening
to music).

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that 
 Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3?

 
 Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to 
 music).


You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed O 
Fortuna (the first song of Orff's Carmina Burana) is cast in 3 beats to the 
bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... 

I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the 
threeness of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying 
earlier. Beat in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple 
resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce 
these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already 
incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers.

Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something 
else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. 

K





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



Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain




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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression
 that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar,
 not 3?

 Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening
 to music).


Everybody with the good fortune of being able to hear is musical, which
your post demonstrates.

If I remember score correctly and listen to the video, the turning wheel
part beginning at around 0:25, is triple meter, as is the beginning.

3/2 at semper crescis around 125 bpm, but your musicality tells you wtf
are they going on about? The orchestra is pumping groups of 2 and/or 4!,
which is correct.

But this is a bit subtle to convey in writing. This impression is due to
orchestra's rhythmic displacement of groups of four quarters imposed onto
triple meter cycling of half notes every two measures of 3/2. The orchestra
plays/repeats a four quarter note motif three times every two bars. But
this does not line up with the vocals in terms of strong and weak rhythm
events of both lines; which creates a beautiful locking effect in overall
rhythm. The four note orchestra motif fills the gaps of the overall
triple meter, scattering weak and strong accents, framing the vocals often
starting on 2.

The low orchestra/percussion hit is the real reference point every two,
four, or eight measures. Since the vocal supports much of the main line, as
Nadia Boulanger would have put it, it is large part of the main property of
these passages (0:25 in video, with boom designating low orchestra note
and/or percussion):

boom, 2,  3,1,   2,  (3= not sung), Boom, 2,3,  1,   2,   (3=
not sung) Boom etc.
Boom, sem-per cre-scis-(rest)  Boom aut-de cre-scis
(rest)  Boom etc.

Counting this way, you'll hear the macro structure of the main line as
composer intended in triple meter. I don't know whether this obfuscates
more than it helps enjoyment of the thing, though... especially since
composers don't want to make numeric structure too transparent and trivial
as they want to give people their money's worth!

In qualia terms the overall triple meter is culprit for the spinning; and
the chugging mechanic four note motifs and low blows of orchestra I'd
assign to relentless, military judgement of fate and fortune, I guess. That
damned wheel keeps spinning: stories of power, threats, shocks, pyramids,
fortune etc. here :-) PGC


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


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:


 On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression
 that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar,
 not 3?



 Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening
 to music).



 You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed O
 Fortuna (the first song of Orff's Carmina Burana) is cast in 3 beats to
 the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way...


Yes, for these beginning measures of O Fortuna; but Orff was like
Stravinsky and their successors with playing around with meter, especially
when you look at the whole work: meter can and does change at any moment.
Not least because of the conversational/prose character of the texts as
basis. This plus frequent caesura use makes it so prose-like, naturally
conversational and the rhythmic complexity (frequent changes in meter of
two, threes, fives, fours, sevens) under the hood is not simple to discern,
without a deeper look. Fun stuff :-) PGC



 I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting
 because the threeness of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what
 I was saying earlier. Beat in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with
 such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other
 (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of
 circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis
 the magic of the numbers.

 Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are
 something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly.

 K







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


 

 Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

 Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 Mobile:   0450 963 719
 Landline: 02 9389 4239
 Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

 Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain




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


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread LizR

I should have listened after all. I always think of a certain part of
Carmina Burana...





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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 4 Mar 2014, at 1:33 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 Counting this way, you'll hear the macro structure of the main line as 
 composer intended in triple meter. I don't know whether this obfuscates more 
 than it helps enjoyment of the thing, though... especially since composers 
 don't want to make numeric structure too transparent and trivial as they want 
 to give people their money's worth!


As a composer myself, I'll tell you what I think the better composers usually 
do. They use Occam. What is the meter that this thing, this shape in my head 
fits more or less squarely into. I don't want to have to change the meter 
signature unnecessarily. So, it's a practical thing, and is based on what 
would be easiest for the players to process. Musos are great counters, but they 
start to demand more money if you make the counting too hard...

The cross rhythm you experience at the opening is decidedly fraught 
withwhat you said (so well!) This state of confusion I think is so 
brilliant because the next thing that happens is this relentless three thing 
is going to start spinning around unequivocally and drilling down into your 
head like a Talban commander with a hand-drill. Either you'll get the money or 
you won't. But rich or poor, you can't take any of it to heaven!






 
 In qualia terms the overall triple meter is culprit for the spinning; and the 
 chugging mechanic four note motifs and low blows of orchestra I'd assign to 
 relentless, military judgement of fate and fortune, I guess. That damned 
 wheel keeps spinning: stories of power, threats, shocks, pyramids, fortune 
 etc. here :-) PGC


Actually, I think this whole production of Carmina Burana is a total gem. You 
don't really ever see a staged version of it and this thing was done for - IIRC 
- German or French TV in the 80s and I can only find the first two movements on 
YT. I saw the whole thing at the time.  Yes, the angel and the devil both keep 
that wheel spinning, don't they. Bloody thing is spinning out of control right 
now as Vlad the Conqueror puts the Russian Empire back together.

Hail Vladimir! Russia's newest Czar!


Sorry, I digress. 

Kim

  









Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain




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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:44:43AM +1300, LizR wrote:
 
 If Max participated in this list then his theory doesnt look quite so
 clever! I didn't realise that. But he is at least popularising ideas that I
 assume are fairly esoteric for most people, even physicists and
 philosophers? Which I would think is a good thing?
 
 

I sent Max a copy of my ToN book a number of years ago, and he has
kindly cited it once or twice. I also noted a review by Let's Compare
Options of ToN on Amazon, which whilst very complementary of my book,
could also be considered a thinly disguised plug for Max's book. I
don't know how these things work, exactly, but I would assume that Max
is well aware of the ideas being discussed on this list.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Mar 2014, at 23:48, LizR wrote:

Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the  
impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4  
beats to the bar, not 3?


Me too.




Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like  
listening to music).


Me too!

Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Mar 2014, at 23:44, LizR wrote:


On 3 March 2014 20:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he  
is at least trying to get his head around the big questions, like  
why is there something rather than nothing? In fact his is the only  
satisfactory answer to that question I've ever come across, which  
is quite an achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.


Tegmark fails to see that his hypothesis is a very old (even if  
ignored) theorem.


You mean Plato's idea? If so, he has updated it somewhat. Or if  
not...?


I meant UDA (published in 1991, made public ten years before).  
Mathematicalism, even arithmeticalism, is a consequence of comp (and  
some small amount of Occam).


But you are right, that was also an idea defended by the greek  
mathematicians, which at that time meant mathematicalists, like  
Xeusippes who asked Plato to fire Aristotle from the academy!





And physics is not a mathematical structure among others, but a  
psychological/theological phenomenon arising from computer-science  
laws, that is arithmetical laws.


Well, imho Tegmark has a problem with consciousness in his theory,  
which he seems to rather brush over. (But in that he's doing no  
worse than the materialist, is he?)


He do better, except in his last paper, which is almost as anti- 
everett than Chalmers use of Everett to defend dualism.





It is a physicist progress in the comp's consequence, but we are far  
in advance, in this list, to which Tegmark participated, but he  
missed both philosophy of mind and logic.


If Max participated in this list then his theory doesnt look quite  
so clever! I didn't realise that. But he is at least popularising  
ideas that I assume are fairly esoteric for most people, even  
physicists and philosophers? Which I would think is a good thing?


Popularising is good. It would easily be better if it was fair in  
references. You know, the FPI is still the thing officially not  
recognized by the mainstream, and is still supposed to be the reason  
why I am a crackpot. Here John Clark is far better than the  
academics, because he tries (at least) to find a flaw in it.





Then a mistery: his last paper on consciousness regresses a lot from  
his paper and book. He seems to still miss the FPI, even if Jason's  
quote of Tegmark seems to show he get the step 3 that is the FPI,  
(but I explained it to him,  so his lack of reference is a bit sad  
from the human pov. He follows a common tradition here, like  
Chalmers).


You mean his idea about consciousness as a state of matter?


Yes.

I read the paper but I didn't really take much away from it in the  
end. He seemed to go off on a tangent (or several) and I got a bit  
confused.


Especially from someone who seem to grasp the FPI, and Everett. In  
fact that paper seems to imply that Tegmark has not yet really  
understood the relation between Everett and computationalism.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 11:37 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 2 March 2014 20:28, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
origin or any primal causation.

IMHO you need some sort of logical explanation. Otherwise retrocausality is
like eternal inflation - you can use it to explain where the universe comes
from, but you still need to explain the origin of the laws of physics that
allow it to happen. (This is why I find Max Tegmark's mathematical universe
stuff appealing.)

I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am toying
with how it could be a mechanism by which something could seemingly arise
from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws of physics (or math
perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to exist a priori that allow
retro-causation to occur.

Seriously I am very much agnostic on all of this, and feel like a blind
person trying to understand a sunset, but, at the same time and in the same
breath, I am fascinated by where these meanderings on the edge of the
beginning can go, from time to time.

Chris

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

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 2 March 2014 21:05, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:



 I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am toying
 with how it could be a mechanism by which something could seemingly arise
 from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws of physics (or math
 perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to exist a priori that allow
 retro-causation to occur.


Fair enough. The upshot (I think) would be that whatever exists is a 4 (or
more) dimensional structure which is in a sense free-floating - whether
it's one universe, a self-generating universe or an infinite and eternal
universe, it effectively comes from nothing (except whatever causes it to
exist in an atemporal manner).

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 11:53, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:



If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what  
evidence does this occur?
Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing -  
even more fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could  
see this logic in a pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very  
large number of atoms, but if math is to be the superstructure  
underlying everything then I - speaking for myself - am not  
satisfied by saying it just is a fact.



But do you agree with 1+1=2?
I agree that math is internally consistent



1+1=2 is quasi-infinitely more simple than math is internally  
consistent.


I have few doubt that 1+1=2 makes sense, and is true, but a term  
like math does not denote a theory for which consistent can make  
sense.





and that within mathematical ontology it is self-consistent.  
Furthermore it seems to crop up in reality again and again.  
Patterns, equations, such as say the Fibonacci series manifesting in  
so many unrelated places; the universe in its reduced symbol set of  
smeared quarks and leptons; its constants and various cardinal  
values and states such as spin, color, charge etc. - it does all  
seem very binary and mathematical.

I however remain curious, where 1 came from, and even before 1,


Don't confuse the null set and the number 0.

I don't believe in set. Finite set theory is equivalent to Peano  
Arithmetic (even more equivalent than Turing equivalent). But usual  
set theory have much stronger axiom, like the axiom of infinity.





the null set... the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more  
than nothing.


Yes, with the set theoretical principles of reflexion and  
comprehension, you can get almost all sets from the null set.




It takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this  
most reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up,  
perhaps because it is unknowable.
I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating  
infinite forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism  
operating over layer and layers of stochastic boundaries.


OK. But the point is that we can't prove the existence of null set, or  
of the umber 0. We can't prove this from logic alone (= failure of  
Russell and Whitehead logicism).







Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, in my theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting  
things is that Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2 is also a theorem.


Sure... an emergent phenomena; don't really have any existential  
issues with my being, being emergent In fact I rather like the  
idea of emerging into being. It fits with the brains massive  
parallelism and lack of any central operating system (that we have  
found). I emerge; therefore I am.


OK, I have no problem with this too.

Bruno



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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.



These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.  
All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could  
= mustard.


It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1  
would still be equal to 2.


Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.


You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I  
am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the  
case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on  
me at all.









Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply  
to everything.


1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that  
theory.


Nothing can = anything independently of sense.


This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the  
contrary. The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when  
possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a  
vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order  
language). In that case 1+1=2 will be a law, valid in all models of  
the theory.









Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one  
raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the  
sense which objects make when we count them.


No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.

Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling  
through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to  
the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.


It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their  
fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc.









That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond  
literal objects to virtual objects,


If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an  
hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.


A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a  
bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.


A real bucket? I don't know what that is. real is what is under  
investigation. If I knew what real meant, I would stop doing  
research (like you apparently).










but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.


You don't know that.

I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and  
that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.


Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to  
the contrary, notably in the math part. The fact that machine cannot  
see the equivalence between []p and []p  p already entails a tension,  
in the virgin Löbian machine, between its interior and exterior  
conception of itself. Machines have already a left and right brain,  
and I guess the bilaterality of brains exploits this in specializing  
the hemisphere into []p and []p  p. Their logics are quite different.







It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is  
already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a  
thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or  
be anything.


OK, but your argument have never shown that.

No argument can show truths related to consciousness, you have to  
make the argument your own, and then you should see it for yourself.


Like in math. No problem with this, but my point is that you did not  
succeed in making me able to do that.


Bruno



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



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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread Chris de Morsella

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

On 2 March 2014 21:05, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 

I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am toying
with how it could be a mechanism by which something could seemingly arise
from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws of physics (or math
perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to exist a priori that allow
retro-causation to occur.

 

Fair enough. The upshot (I think) would be that whatever exists is a 4 (or
more) dimensional structure which is in a sense free-floating - whether it's
one universe, a self-generating universe or an infinite and eternal
universe, it effectively comes from nothing (except whatever causes it to
exist in an atemporal manner).

 

Yes.. A higher dimensional manifold, a dynamic topography, intrinsic and
auto-catalyzed, primally causal; yet uncaused. 

In combination with the dynamism of computationalism (and Darwinian
evolution): All that ever was, will be or can be emerges from some simplest
minimal set of arithmetic axiomic entities operating over and on enumerable
and set entities. and in doing so, unleashing the dynamically self-feeding,
recursive process of self-emergence - now imagine emergence with the
addition of retro-causation feedback auto-catalyzing the process.

This is speculative, of course, and enjoyable.. For some at least LOL

Chris

.

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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:13 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 01 Mar 2014, at 11:53, Chris de Morsella wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is
a fact that 1+1=2.

Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what evidence does
this occur?

Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing - even more
fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could see this logic in a
pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very large number of atoms, but
if math is to be the superstructure underlying everything then I - speaking
for myself - am not satisfied by saying it just is a fact.

But do you agree with 1+1=2?

I agree that math is internally consistent 

1+1=2 is quasi-infinitely more simple than math is internally
consistent.

I have few doubt that 1+1=2 makes sense, and is true, but a term like
math does not denote a theory for which consistent can make sense.

and that within mathematical ontology it is self-consistent. Furthermore it
seems to crop up in reality again and again. Patterns, equations, such as
say the Fibonacci series manifesting in so many unrelated places; the
universe in its reduced symbol set of smeared quarks and leptons; its
constants and various cardinal values and states such as spin, color, charge
etc. - it does all seem very binary and mathematical.

I however remain curious, where 1 came from, and even before 1, 

Don't confuse the null set and the number 0. 

I don't believe in set. Finite set theory is equivalent to Peano Arithmetic
(even more equivalent than Turing equivalent). But usual set theory have
much stronger axiom, like the axiom of infinity. 

Finite sets are useful tools and help sequence ordering of operation as well
as ordering of inputs and outputs. Infinite sets make it more interesting
and useful. The set provides the means of attributing things and finding
things via attributes; i.e. a member of the class of things that has these
attributes. Relating things and remembering the relationships amidst dynamic
change is what sets provide. Naturally all manner of more specialized
containers can emerge Say ordered set for example. 

By un-bounding collections it makes them useful universal entities.

the null set... the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more than
nothing. 

Yes, with the set theoretical principles of reflexion and comprehension,
you can get almost all sets from the null set.

In some ways all other possible sets naturally emerge from the null set; in
a way as all numbers emerge from the bit The bit, if infinitely replicated
can express any number; if you can get this infinitely self-auto-replicating
bit off and running like inflation then the universe is in business.

It takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this most
reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up, perhaps because it
is unknowable.

I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating infinite
forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism operating over layer
and layers of stochastic boundaries.

OK. But the point is that we can't prove the existence of null set, or of
the umber 0. We can't prove this from logic alone (= failure of Russell and
Whitehead logicism).

Yes, I agree, I can only imagine how Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem
must have hit Russell and Whitehead like a ton of bricks. 

Chris

Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, in my theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting things is
that Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2 is also a theorem.

Sure... an emergent phenomena; don't really have any existential issues with
my being, being emergent In fact I rather like the idea of emerging into
being. It fits with the brains massive parallelism and lack of any central
operating system (that we have found). I emerge; therefore I am.

OK, I have no problem with this too.

Bruno

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread Kim Jones



Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

 On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.
 
 Bruno

How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers. We're music. Let's go to the 
pub and celebrate.

Kim

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number  
regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what  
numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was  
prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used  
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable  
consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny  
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a  
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our  
theory that the world consists of countable things - whether it  
really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non  
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics,  
the theology, etc.


Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka numbers.  I think  
you're slipping into mysticism, Bruno.


Arithmetical truth, notably with comp, can explain the epistemological  
existence of non mechanically countable object. It is math. I don't  
see what is mystic here. I don't understand your remark. I did not say  
arithmetic, but comp, and this does use only the mystical idea  
that I can remain conscious with a relative digital brain. This leads  
to taking into account the internal points of view of the machine in  
arithmetic, which can have beliefs extending a lot arithmetic. The  
existence of ZF and its proofs is a theorem of arithmetic (even  
Robinson Arithmetic).


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

The TOE extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of  
addition and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you  
can prove the existence of the universal numbers and or all their  
computations, and even interview the Löbian numbers, on what is  
possible for them, in different relative sense.


So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is  
impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making  
arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.


God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added Add and  
Multiply.

Basically. - Bruno

Start;  TOE extracted from comp - so we are talking about a  
fraction of everything, the part as extracted.


The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E, like  
Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a finite  
object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be infinite, and  
is infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside views.




I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we  
can know about, identify or understand.


Me too. No problem with this.





Finish: GOD created the integers - and the World, and the Angels,  
And(faith).  He

(or She, or It) added Add and multiply - nothing else.
(Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of  
children).


How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply  
integers, to get 0.123456?

or irrational numbers?


No problem proving the existence of 0.123456.
No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers, and ...  
all constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real numbers  
makes no sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal views).


In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers,  
but we can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all  
real numbers.





I described here already my 'story' of the Roman numbers before the  
invention of zero, based on TWO hands (with fingers, '5' one palm-  
two fingers)..


Yes, I remember. But the number properties are independent of the  
notation used to represent them.
XXIII is prime. the discovery of 0 has not changed any theorem in  
arithmetic, but it has been handy to find new theorems, which remains  
correct whatever system is used to talk on them.


Bruno



JM



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 08:20, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Personally the notion that all that exists is comp  information -  
encoded on what though? - Is not especially troubling for me. I  
understand how some cling to a fundamental material realism; after  
all it does seem so very real. However when you get right down to  
it all we have is measured values of things and meters by which we  
measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience of our  
own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that  
we can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we  
measure it.
I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark's book - I read a  
bit each day when I break for lunch - so this is partly influencing  
this train of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of  
quantum computing and how in a sense q-bits are leveraging the  
Level III multiverse to compute every possible outcome while in  
quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it that I had never  
read before.
Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the  
idea of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The  
soul is an emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and  
breadth of parallelism and vastness of scale of the information  
system in which it is self-emergent.


Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is:  
Every information system, at least that I have ever been aware of,  
requires a substrate medium upon which to encode itself;  
information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding  
existing on some substrate system. I would like to avoid the  
infinite regression of stopping at the point of describing systems  
as existing upon other and requiring other substrate systems that  
themselves require substrates themselves described as information  
again requiring some substrate... repeat eternally.
It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded  
in a very simple substrate system given enough replication of  
elements... a simple binary state machine could suffice, given enough  
bits.

But what are the bits encoded on?

At some point reductionism can no longer reduce And then we are  
back to where we first started How did that arise or come to be?  
If for example we say that math is reducible to logic or set theory  
then what of sets and the various set operations? What of  
enumerations? These simplest of simple things. Can

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of LizR
On 2 March 2014 21:05, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com  
wrote:


I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am  
toying with how it could be a mechanism by which something could  
seemingly arise from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws  
of physics (or math perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to  
exist a priori that allow retro-causation to occur.


Fair enough. The upshot (I think) would be that whatever exists is a  
4 (or more) dimensional structure which is in a sense free-floating  
- whether it's one universe, a self-generating universe or an  
infinite and eternal universe, it effectively comes from nothing  
(except whatever causes it to exist in an atemporal manner).


Yes A higher dimensional manifold, a dynamic topography, intrinsic  
and auto-catalyzed, primally causal; yet uncaused.
In combination with the dynamism of computationalism (and Darwinian  
evolution): All that ever was, will be or can be emerges from some  
simplest minimal set of arithmetic axiomic entities operating over  
and on enumerable and set entities... and in doing so, unleashing the  
dynamically self-feeding, recursive process of self-emergence - now  
imagine emergence with the addition of retro-causation feedback auto- 
catalyzing the process.

This is speculative, of course, and enjoyable For some at least LOL


If the brain is Turing emulable, then it is a theorem, with the usual  
Occam razor. It makes comp (and the classical theory of knowledge)  
refutable, because physics and math have to emerge from arithmetic in  
a very special way, constraining completely what is and what is not  
observable.


Bruno






Chris
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 6:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number  
regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what  
numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was  
prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used  
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable  
consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny  
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a  
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our  
theory that the world consists of countable things - whether it  
really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non  
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics,  
the theology, etc.


Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka numbers.  I  
think you're slipping into mysticism, Bruno.


Brent ~ are you saying that arithmetic is the operation (with  
potential ordering  grouping) that takes numeric input and  
produces numeric output? I find it hard to conceive of math without  
also contemporaneously envisioning enumerable entities.


I think I could conceive of some math without enumerable entities;  
for example parts of topology and real analysis don't seem to depend  
on counting.  But I was just expressing incredulity with Bruno's  
post.  He says we only need believe that 17 is prime to use  
arithmetic realism.  Then he says there are no countable things in  
his theory!??


OK, I see that a misunderstanding has came from my bad english.

I was saying that there are no-countable things in the theory, not  
that there are no countable things.


I was saying Ex (~(x countable)), and I was not saying that  ~Ex(x  
countable).


Sorry,

Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 04:54, Russell Standish wrote:


On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The
Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes
From.


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.


I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying yes to the doctor
- though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument
like the UDA.

Brent



I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's
original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from
numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would
an example of Hofstadters strange loop.

IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the  
base of

everything at times in the past too?


It is more a virtuous/vicious cycle, than a strange loop, but perhaps  
I am wrong on what Hofstadter called a strange loop.


Mind and phenomena can arise from numbers, and then human-numbers can  
be discovered by the human minds, but there is no loop here, no more  
than humans can arise from amoeba, and then later humans can discover  
the amoebas. If we can explain how mind and phenomena arise from  
number, we can already be satisfied, I think, as we can understand  
that we cannot understand where numbers come from. To add that they  
come from humans or minds, make the loop vicious, as an *explanation*.
That might be possible, in a close time loop in GR, but then we have  
to explain GR and why there is a physical universe obeying GR, and how  
mind emerges in there, etc.


Bruno






Cheers

--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 14:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope.


Consistency does not entail truth.




The universe is consistent.


That makes no sense. The universe is not a theory, nor a believer, a  
priori.


I don't know what you mean by universe, also. Do you mean physical  
universe? primitive physical universe?, or mathematical universe?  
or theological universe?

You take for granted what I am searching for.




A person is part of the universe. People have no direct knowledge of  
the universe. They have only their internal mental simulation of the  
universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able  
to live and function in a consistent universe. Consistency across  
maximum scope IS TRUTH.


Many propositions A can be such that both A and ~A are consistent.  
What you say makes no sense, unless you mean that the reality is made  
of all consistent realities, like the everythingers of this list. This  
leads to block-multiverses, or block multidreams, like arithmetic  
already is.






In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If  
some aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest  
then there is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the  
inconsistency and you come nearer to truth.


Correcting inconsistency makes you consistent, not true.




Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.


This has been refuted by Gödel, even only on arithmetic. Consistency  
appears to be cheap. Indeed Peano Arithmetic extended with the formula  
saying that Peano Arithmetic is inconsistent leads to a consistent  
theory. The theory PA + PA proves 0 = 1 does not prove that 0 = 1.



Bruno


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 15:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:00:54 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope.

How do we know consistency though? Isn't the ability to detect and  
interpret consistency (through sense and sense-making) more  
primitive than the quality of truth or consistency?


The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People  
have no direct knowledge of the universe.


If people have no direct sense of the universe, then neither does  
anything else, and the expectation of some noumenal universe which  
nothing can ever have knowledge of it itself purely hypothetical. We  
have direct knowledge of our experience, and our experience of the  
universe is the only universe that we can ever refer to empirically.  
I do not know that the universe is consistent, since I am part of  
the universe I know that consistency is a chore. If I want to make  
sense and find truth, I have to participate in a process of  
intuitive comparisons and empirical methods.


They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe.

We have the ability to mentally simulate, but we also have the  
ability to directly contact and control external physical realities.  
If we did not, then it would not matter how bad our simulations were.


To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live  
and function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum  
scope IS TRUTH.


I agree, but would qualify it: Maximum appreciation of the  
significance of maximum consistency across the maximum scope is  
truth. Without appreciation of significance, consistency is merely a  
repeating coincidence with no expectation of consequence.



In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If  
some aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest  
then there is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the  
inconsistency and you come nearer to truth.


Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.

Except that consistency can be projected by the mind itself. When  
all inconsistency vanishes, complete delusion can be achieved as well.


OK.(and again this fits very well with computationalism).

Bruno



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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:49, Chris de Morsella wrote:


the null set... the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more  
than nothing.


Sure. The set { { } } is not empty. { } *is* something.





Yes, with the set theoretical principles of reflexion and  
comprehension, you can get almost all sets from the null set.


In some ways all other possible sets naturally emerge from the null  
set; in a way as all numbers emerge from the bit The bit, if  
infinitely replicated can express any number; if you can get this  
infinitely self-auto-replicating bit off and running like inflation  
then the universe is in business.


Except that here you seems to take fro granted that universe is a  
well defined term, but it is not, and apparently, if comp is true, the  
physical and the mathematical universe are epistemic construction in  
the mind of numbers, relatively to infinities of number relations. By  
the First Person Indeterminacy, our mind are distributed through  
infinitely many computations occurrences in arithmetic, and the  
physical is somehow determined by the statistics which can exist (or  
not, but the first results go in the direction that it can exist) on  
*all* (relative) computations.

This makes physics, including experimental physics, into arithmetic.







It takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this  
most reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up,  
perhaps because it is unknowable.
I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating  
infinite forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism  
operating over layer and layers of stochastic boundaries.


OK. But the point is that we can't prove the existence of null  
set, or of the umber 0. We can't prove this from logic alone (=  
failure of Russell and Whitehead logicism).


Yes, I agree, I can only imagine how Kurt Gödel's incompleteness  
theorem must have hit Russell and Whitehead like a ton of bricks.


It is a real (creative) bomb. Few realize the deep impact that theorem  
has on basically everything fundamental.
It is often misused, and so, some expert logicians infer that all its  
use out of logic are misused, but this is refuted in computer science  
and in computationalist physics and theology.


Bruno



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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote:




Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL


On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.

Bruno


How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers.


Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn  
mathematician :)


I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep and  
profound though.




We're music. Let's go to the pub and celebrate.


OK. Good idea :)

Bruno






Kim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of  
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The  
Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes  
From.


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.


I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying yes to the doctor  
- though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument  
like the UDA.


But then you must show the flaw, or add a missing hypothesis or  
something. Normally UDA follows from comp. I was of course assuming  
people grasp UDA here.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

  
  
  On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
  
  
  
  On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: 
  If it's all math, then where does math come from? 
  
  Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That   
  is, it is a fact that 1+1=2. 
  
  
  These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.   
  All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could   
  = mustard. 
  
  It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1   
  would still be equal to 2. 
  
  Not if you were the only mind left in the universe. 

 You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I   
 am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the   
 case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on   
 me at all. 


If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what everything 
depends on. There would be nothing else but you which could know anything 
or experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you are 
the only truth there is.
 




  
  
  
  
  Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply   
  to everything. 
  
  1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that   
  theory. 
  
  Nothing can = anything independently of sense. 

 This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the   
 contrary.


Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense. Logic is local truth. It 
can never include sense itself let alone the absolute (pansensitivity). 
Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the water, but there is no water 
there. = is a myth of representation. For authentic presence, there is 
only 'reminds me of' or 'seems almost exactly like'.

 

 The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when   
 possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a   
 vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order   
 language). In that case 1+1=2 will be a law, valid in all models of   
 the theory. 


Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives in, 
which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still only a map, 
and it is a map of distance and measure, not of experience.
 




  
  
  
  
  Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one   
  raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the   
  sense which objects make when we count them. 
  
  No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot. 
  
  Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling   
  through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to   
  the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled. 

 It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their   
 fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc. 


Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things. Computationalism is 
not interested in counting feelings (how many feelings do you have? How 
many now?), yet it presumes to attribute feeling to a consequence of 
counting, using logic that has no idea what feeling could be. What hubris!

I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we have to 
meet them halfway:

http://s33light.org/post/77942035998
 




  
  
  
  
  That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond   
  literal objects to virtual objects, 
  
  If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an   
  hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use. 
  
  A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a   
  bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties. 

 A real bucket? I don't know what that is. 


It has all of the aesthetic qualities that we expect of a bucket, as well 
as what is expected by the microphysical conditions that make up the bucket.

 

 real is what is under   
 investigation. If I knew what real meant, I would stop doing   
 research (like you apparently). 


Real is the density of aesthetic correspondence relative to the total 
continuum of sense.
 




  
  
  
  
  but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior. 
  
  You don't know that. 
  
  I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and   
  that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary. 

 Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to   
 the contrary, notably in the math part. 


That's math though. I don't see that it has any connection to the universe 
that we live in.
 

 The fact that machine cannot   
 see the equivalence between []p and []p  p already entails a tension,   
 in the virgin Löbian machine, between its interior and exterior   
 conception of itself. Machines have already a left

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread ghibbsa


On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:39:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote:

 Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

 *The TOE extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of addition 
 and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you can prove the 
 existence of the universal numbers and or all their computations, and even 
 interview the Löbian numbers, on what is possible for them, in different 
 relative sense.*

 *So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is 
 impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making 
 arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.*

 *God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added Add and 
 Multiply. *
 *Basically. - **Bruno*

  *Start;*  TOE extracted from comp - so we are talking about a fraction 
 of everything, the part as extracted. 


 The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E, like 
 Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a finite 
 object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be infinite, and is 
 infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside views.



 I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we can know 
 about, identify or understand. 


 Me too. No problem with this.

 
 
Why? Why do you both *like* to consider the world this way that 
condemns the highest dreams of discovery to disappointment and futility.  I 
could relate to assuming that for a methodological reason. And for a 
sincerely believed theory reason. But I'm struggling with the personal 
preference reason. 





 *Finish:* GOD created the integers - and the World, and the Angels, 
 And(faith).  He 
 (or She, or It) added Add and multiply - nothing else.
 (Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of children).

 How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply integers, to 
 get *0.123456*? 
 or *irrational* numbers?


 No problem proving the existence of 0.123456.
 No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers, and ... all 
 constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real numbers makes no 
 sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal views).

 In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers, but we 
 can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all real numbers.

 
For me the most significant part was Irrational Numbers...which you seem to 
have overlooked in your answer. How does the comp ToE, explain, derive, and 
predict in nature as her preference this cult of number? Unlike the others, 
this is a clear and real oppiortunity to say something new we didn't know. 
Like, what are the irrational numbers in nature we don't know about? What 
is the origin of this numbers and their function, that only they can 
deliver, only because they are irrational?



  


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
 If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That
 is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


 These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.
 All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could
 = mustard.

 It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1
 would still be equal to 2.

 Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.

You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I
am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the
case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on
me at all.

If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what  
everything depends on.


You have to learn logic.



There would be nothing else but you which could know anything or  
experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you  
are the only truth there is.


Wrong.












 Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply
 to everything.

 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that
 theory.

 Nothing can = anything independently of sense.

This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the
contrary.

Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense.


I am afraid you have to learn logic.





Logic is local truth.


Nope.



It can never include sense itself let alone the absolute  
(pansensitivity). Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the  
water, but there is no water there. = is a myth of representation.  
For authentic presence, there is only 'reminds me of' or 'seems  
almost exactly like'.



The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when
possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a
vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order
language). In that case 1+1=2 will be a law, valid in all models of
the theory.

Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives  
in, which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still  
only a map, and it is a map of distance and measure, not of  
experience.









 Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
 raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the
 sense which objects make when we count them.

 No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.

 Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling
 through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to
 the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.

It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their
fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc.

Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things.  
Computationalism is not interested in counting feelings (how many  
feelings do you have? How many now?), yet it presumes to attribute  
feeling to a consequence of counting, using logic that has no idea  
what feeling could be. What hubris!


Straw man.








I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we  
have to meet them halfway:


http://s33light.org/post/77942035998








 That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond
 literal objects to virtual objects,

 If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an
 hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.

 A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a
 bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.

A real bucket? I don't know what that is.

It has all of the aesthetic qualities that we expect of a bucket, as  
well as what is expected by the microphysical conditions that make  
up the bucket.


Ah!
[]p  p.
Good!

Assuming comp, the microphysical is first person plural, as Everett  
confirms, and I can prove that real persons meet real buckets in  
arithmetic.






real is what is under
investigation. If I knew what real meant, I would stop doing
research (like you apparently).

Real is the density of aesthetic correspondence relative to the  
total continuum of sense.


Really?











 but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.

 You don't know that.

 I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and
 that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.

Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to
the contrary, notably in the math part.

That's math though. I don't see that it has any connection to the  
universe that we live in.


You just cut the connection for it, like the Church.







The fact that machine cannot
see the

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:34, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:39:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

The TOE extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of  
addition and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you  
can prove the existence of the universal numbers and or all their  
computations, and even interview the Löbian numbers, on what is  
possible for them, in different relative sense.


So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it  
is impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic,  
making arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.


God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added Add and  
Multiply.

Basically. - Bruno

Start;  TOE extracted from comp - so we are talking about a  
fraction of everything, the part as extracted.


The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E,  
like Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a  
finite object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be  
infinite, and is infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside  
views.




I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we  
can know about, identify or understand.


Me too. No problem with this.


Why? Why do you both *like* to consider the world this way that  
condemns the highest dreams of discovery to disappointment and  
futility.


That does not follow at all. On the contrary it is the awe in front of  
the infinite unknown which motivates the research and the exploration.




I could relate to assuming that for a methodological reason. And for  
a sincerely believed theory reason. But I'm struggling with the  
personal preference reason.


Simply because there are no choice, whatever hypotheses we choose, we  
are confronted to very difficult questions, and in theology, we are  
confronted with unanswerable things. That's normal.


The giganticness of the garden does not limit the butterfly, on the  
contrary.











Finish: GOD created the integers - and the World, and the Angels,  
And(faith).  He

(or She, or It) added Add and multiply - nothing else.
(Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of  
children).


How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply  
integers, to get 0.123456?

or irrational numbers?


No problem proving the existence of 0.123456.
No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers,  
and ... all constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real  
numbers makes no sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal  
views).


In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers,  
but we can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all  
real numbers.


For me the most significant part was Irrational Numbers...which you  
seem to have overlooked in your answer.


Well, that the real numbers.



How does the comp ToE, explain, derive, and predict in nature as her  
preference this cult of number? Unlike the others, this is a clear  
and real oppiortunity to say something new we didn't know. Like,  
what are the irrational numbers in nature we don't know about?


?
Well we know well and why, even in pure number theory, why sqrt(2),  
and e and gamma plays role.
The sum of the inverse of the square numbers is PI^2 divided by 6. PA  
can prove this.

I am not sure I understand your question.




What is the origin of this numbers and their function, that only  
they can deliver, only because they are irrational?


I can say many thing on that, but that's math, and not so related to  
the topic. Keep in mind we are on the mind-body problem, and even only  
on its precise comp formulation in arithmetic.


We are not here to answer all question. But most answer here are that  
all those things are consequences of RA or PA, or ZF. Those are  
theories on which many can agree.


Bruno








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

  
  
  On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
  
   
   
   On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
   
   On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
   
   
   
   On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: 
   If it's all math, then where does math come from? 
   
   Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That 
   is, it is a fact that 1+1=2. 
   
   
   These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. 
   All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could 
   = mustard. 
   
   It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1 
   would still be equal to 2. 
   
   Not if you were the only mind left in the universe. 
  
  You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I 
  am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the 
  case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on 
  me at all. 
  
  If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what   
  everything depends on. 

 You have to learn logic. 


Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.
 




  There would be nothing else but you which could know anything or   
  experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you   
  are the only truth there is. 

 Wrong. 


Why?
 




  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply 
   to everything. 
   
   1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that 
   theory. 
   
   Nothing can = anything independently of sense. 
  
  This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the 
  contrary. 
  
  Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense. 

 I am afraid you have to learn logic. 


I am afraid that is a dodge.
 





  Logic is local truth. 

 Nope. 


If it weren't, then you couldn't get away from logic in altered states of 
consciousness. It's quite easy to get away from logic, but there is no 
getting away from sense.
 




  It can never include sense itself let alone the absolute   
  (pansensitivity). Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the   
  water, but there is no water there. = is a myth of representation.   
  For authentic presence, there is only 'reminds me of' or 'seems   
  almost exactly like'. 
  
  
  The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when 
  possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a 
  vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order 
  language). In that case 1+1=2 will be a law, valid in all models of 
  the theory. 
  
  Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives   
  in, which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still   
  only a map, and it is a map of distance and measure, not of   
  experience. 
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one 
   raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the 
   sense which objects make when we count them. 
   
   No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot. 
   
   Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling 
   through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to 
   the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled. 
  
  It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their 
  fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc. 
  
  Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things.   
  Computationalism is not interested in counting feelings (how many   
  feelings do you have? How many now?), yet it presumes to attribute   
  feeling to a consequence of counting, using logic that has no idea   
  what feeling could be. What hubris! 

 Straw man. 


You have to learn logic. Wrong. you have to learn logic. Nope. Straw man.

These aren't answers. You're just putting your fingers in your ears.
  






  
  I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we   
  have to meet them halfway: 
  
  http://s33light.org/post/77942035998 
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond 
   literal objects to virtual objects, 
   
   If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an 
   hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use. 
   
   A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a 
   bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties. 
  
  A real bucket? I don't know what that is. 
  
  It has all of the aesthetic qualities that we expect of a bucket, as   
  well as what is expected by the microphysical conditions that make   
  up the bucket. 

 Ah! 
 []p  p. 
 Good! 

 Assuming comp, the microphysical is

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2014 20:28, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
origin or any primal causation.

IMHO you need some sort of logical explanation. Otherwise retrocausality is like eternal
inflation - you can use it to explain where the universe comes from, but you still need
to explain the origin of the laws of physics that allow it to happen. (This is why I
find Max Tegmark's mathematical universe stuff appealing.)

I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the laws of physics depend on our demands
that the laws be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a consequence of requiring
the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant. See Vic Stenger's The Comprehensible
Cosmos for full development of the idea that all of physics can be seen this way. So the
laws are the way they are because we make them up to fit the observations and we only
want to make them up in certain ways that make them useful for prediction and
explanation. If stuff doesn't fit we may reject it as geography and then try to come
back later and explain it from better laws. You can see this in the solar system.
Kepler proposed orbital laws based on the Platonic solids. Newton showed that gravity made
the orbital motion predictable; but it relegated the spacing of the planets to
geography. Now we study the creation of stars from the accretion of dust clouds and
have statistical explanations for the geography.

Brent

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.


Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?

Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical.





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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the laws of physics depend on
 our demands that the laws be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a
 consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant.


That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)


 See Vic Stenger's The Comprehensible Cosmos for full development of the
 idea that all of physics can be seen this way.  So the laws are the way
 they are because we make them up to fit the observations and we only want
 to make them up in certain ways that make them useful for prediction and
 explanation.


So are you saying that the conservation of energy is no more fundamental to
physics than the shape of Africa? Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're
saying here (it seems either trivially correct or wrong but I can't tell
which!)

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)

Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a lagrangian and the
existence of a corresponding conserved quantity. But that a lagrangain (or theory in any
form) have that character is a demand; or at least a strong desiderata. Remember how
the neutrino was discovered. If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just
look for something new we could count as the energy difference.

See Vic Stenger's The Comprehensible Cosmos for full development of the
idea that
all of physics can be seen this way. So the laws are the way they are
because we
make them up to fit the observations and we only want to make them up in
certain
ways that make them useful for prediction and explanation.

So are you saying that the conservation of energy is no more fundamental to physics than
the shape of Africa?

No, I'm saying it's so fundamental we'd reshape Africa to fit. It's almost essential to
having a theory that doesn't refer to a particular time, that applies equally at all times.

Brent

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're saying here (it seems either trivially correct
or wrong but I can't tell which!)

--
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
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:


 Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.


 Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?

 Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical.
  

  


Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to be logical. It seems 
pretty straightforward to me. Sense = horse, Logic = cart.
 

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


  I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the laws of physics depend
 on our demands that the laws be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is
 a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant.


  That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)

  Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a
 lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity.  But
 that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a
 demand; or at least a strong desiderata.  Remember how the neutrino was
 discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look
 for something new we could count as the energy difference.


I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous
comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or
Vic Stenger).

IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey
conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that
everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300
years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately
assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out,
they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond
being a mere accounting process in beta decay, or whatever it was, such
as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support
(e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).

Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly
detected, and scientists were duly surprised.

I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a
postmodernist take on how scientists operate.

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3 March 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:


 Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.


 Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?

 Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical.


 Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to be logical. It seems
 pretty straightforward to me. Sense = horse, Logic = cart.


I'm not sure what you mean by sense / logical here?

For something to make sense, it has to have certain properties - say The
worst witch makes sense as long as the magic being portrayed has internal
consistency.

Is that logical, captain?

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)

Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a lagrangian
and the
existence of a corresponding conserved quantity. But that a lagrangain (or
theory
in any form) have that character is a demand; or at least a strong desiderata.
Remember how the neutrino was discovered. If some process seemed to not conserve

energy, we'd just look for something new we could count as the energy
difference.

I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous comment to come
from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or Vic Stenger).

IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey conservation
laws, given their success to date. That is, given that everything in the universe that
had been studied over the previous 300 years or so appeared to obey these principles,
why would they immediately assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it
turned out, they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond
being a mere accounting process in beta decay, or whatever it was, such as being
directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support (e.g. in how the sun
operates and how supernovas explode).

Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing something not
previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby achieve conservation. I
don't think the general conservation of energy was considered a firm principle until the
mid 1800's and its violation was seriously entertained in the case of beta decay. But the
idea that the laws of physics should not depend on time or place goes back much further
and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also metaphysical. Notice how
outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a universal clock. How would it
sound to put forth a theory that reference a specific time? No one would accept it as
fundamental.

Also, some processes /do /violate symmetries, and these have been duly detected, and
scientists were duly surprised.

Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry and so doesn't
fall under Noether's theorem. I don't claim it's an absolute requirement (notice I said
desiderata) but it's surprising how much you can get out of symmetry principles. Did
you read Stenger's essay? My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark,
and others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant theory, then
we'll know what's really real. I don't think they pay enough attention to the fact that
we make up the laws of physics.

Brent

I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a postmodernist
take on how scientists operate.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 6:47:51 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 March 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:


 Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.


 Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?

 Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical.


 Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to be logical. It seems 
 pretty straightforward to me. Sense = horse, Logic = cart.


 I'm not sure what you mean by sense / logical here?

 For something to make sense, it has to have certain properties - say The 
 worst witch makes sense as long as the magic being portrayed has internal 
 consistency.


I don't think that it has to have certain properties. It only has to be an 
experience in which aesthetic coherence is encountered. It's primal. An 
infant does not make sense of their own discomfort through any kind of 
logical vetting. They are overwhelmed with the convulsive quality of it and 
their crying is a way to participate in that experience.

Pain makes sense without logic.
 


 Is that logical, captain?


I'm interested in the logic of reality, but I think most people here are 
interested in the reality of logic.

 

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3 March 2014 13:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:

  IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey
 conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that
 everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300
 years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately
 assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out,
 they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond
 being a mere accounting process in beta decay, or whatever it was, such
 as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support
 (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).


 Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing
 something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby
 achieve conservation.  I don't think the general conservation of energy was
 considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was
 seriously entertained in the case of beta decay.  But the idea that the
 laws of physics should not depend on time or place goes back much further
 and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also
 metaphysical.


But only because observations indicate that is how the universe works.
(Actually we do have a theory that references a specific time - the Big
Bang.- but I know what you mean.)

Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a universal
 clock.  How would it sound to put forth a theory that reference a specific
 time?  No one would accept it as fundamental.


However, Edgar's p-time would have seemed perfectly plausible to a
Newtonian physicist.

 Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly
 detected, and scientists were duly surprised.

  Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry
 and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim it's an
 absolute requirement (notice I said desiderata) but it's surprising how
 much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did you read Stenger's
 essay?  My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and
 others, idea that if we *just* get the right math, or the most elegant
 theory, then we'll know what's really real.  I don't think they pay enough
 attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics.


I would dispute your use of just here! Obviously they are hopeful that we
will eventually uncover the truth, even if we can never prove we've done
so, but I'm not sure that is *necessarily* unrealistic, even if it proves
to be impossible in practice.

I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at
least trying to get his head around the big questions, like why is there
something rather than nothing? In fact his is the *only* satisfactory
answer to that question I've ever come across, which is quite an
achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

You claim my p-time theory sounds outrageous but you haven't been able to 
meaningfully comment on my many demonstrations of how it actually works 
that I've made to Jesse.

For example Jesse claims that there is no 1:1 correlation of proper ages of 
twins separated by distance in relative motion but there is when the twins 
are at rest relative to each other even at distance.

But what if the twins are separated by a great distance and just start 
walking away from each other? Do they then magically somehow COMPLETELY 
LOSE ALL their 1:1 correlation of proper ages? If not, ithen the DEGREE OF 
CORRELATION of proper ages must be dependent on the amount of relative 
motion in contradiction to how most interpret relativistic non-simultaneity?

My point is that Jesse and I are having a real detailed discussion of 
P-time theory, and for someone not following the details of that discussion 
to pass judgment on it without actually engaging with the theory is pretty 
presumptuous.

I'd be happy for you to join the discussion if you think you are up to 
it

Or to discuss my theory of how spaceCLOCKtime emerges from quantum events 
which you claim to be interested in but never actually engage with or ask 
questions about. I for one look forward to such a discussion

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:39:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

  On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

  
  I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the laws of physics 
 depend on our demands that the laws be invariant, e.g. conservation of 
 energy is a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation 
 invariant.


  That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)
   
  Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a 
 lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity.  But 
 that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a 
 demand; or at least a strong desiderata.  Remember how the neutrino was 
 discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look 
 for something new we could count as the energy difference.


  I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous 
 comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or 
 Vic Stenger).

 IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey 
 conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that 
 everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300 
 years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately 
 assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out, 
 they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond 
 being a mere accounting process in beta decay, or whatever it was, such 
 as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support 
 (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).
   

 Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing 
 something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby 
 achieve conservation.  I don't think the general conservation of energy was 
 considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was 
 seriously entertained in the case of beta decay.  But the idea that the 
 laws of physics should not depend on time or place goes back much further 
 and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also 
 metaphysical.  Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just 
 wants a universal clock.  How would it sound to put forth a theory that 
 reference a specific time?  No one would accept it as fundamental.


  Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly 
 detected, and scientists were duly surprised.
   

 Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry 
 and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim it's an 
 absolute requirement (notice I said desiderata) but it's surprising how 
 much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did you read Stenger's 
 essay?  My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and 
 others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant 
 theory, then we'll know what's really real.  I don't think they pay enough 
 attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics.

 Brent

   
 I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a 
 postmodernist take on how scientists operate.

   -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 3/2/2014 4:50 PM, LizR wrote:
I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at least trying to 
get his head around the big questions, like why is there something rather than nothing? 


To quote the late Norm Levitt: What is there?  Everything! So what isn't there?  
Nothing!

Or Frank Wilczek (Nobel prize 2004): The reason that there is Something rather than 
Nothing is that Nothing is unstable.


In fact his is the /only/ satisfactory answer to that question I've ever come across, 
which is quite an achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.


Brent

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3 March 2014 14:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 3/2/2014 4:50 PM, LizR wrote:

 I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at
 least trying to get his head around the big questions, like why is there
 something rather than nothing?

 To quote the late Norm Levitt: What is there?  Everything! So what isn't
 there?  Nothing!


As Russell will tell you they may be one and the same.


 Or Frank Wilczek (Nobel prize 2004): The reason that there is Something
 rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable.


With all due respect to Wilczek, who I suspect you may be quoting out of
context, that hasn't answered the question, has it? - The question being,
where did the laws of physics come from that made nothing unstable?

You may as well rope in Edgar to explain why it's logically impossible for
there to be nothing because blah whatever.

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 02 Mar 2014, at 20:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2014 20:28, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com  
wrote:
Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and  
reject

the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro- 
causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of  
ultimate

origin or any primal causation.

IMHO you need some sort of logical explanation. Otherwise  
retrocausality is like eternal inflation - you can use it to  
explain where the universe comes from, but you still need to  
explain the origin of the laws of physics that allow it to happen.  
(This is why I find Max Tegmark's mathematical universe stuff  
appealing.)


I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the laws of physics  
depend on our demands that the laws be invariant, e.g.  
conservation of energy is a consequence of requiring the lagrangian  
to be time-translation invariant.  See Vic Stenger's The  
Comprehensible Cosmos for full development of the idea that all of  
physics can be seen this way.


OK. That is a very good book. (Much better than his book on theology).



So the laws are the way they are because we make them up to fit  
the observations and we only want to make them up in certain ways  
that make them useful for prediction and explanation.


OK.



If stuff doesn't fit we may reject it as geography and then try to  
come back later and explain it from better laws.  You can see this  
in the solar system.  Kepler proposed orbital laws based on the  
Platonic solids. Newton showed that gravity made the orbital motion  
predictable; but it relegated the spacing of the planets to  
geography.  Now we study the creation of stars from the accretion  
of dust clouds and have statistical explanations for the geography.


Very nice. This fits very well with how computationalism needs to  
redefine physics, with the risk that physics might become purely  
geographical. But the results obtained so far saves physics as a non  
trivial core guiding all the geographies.


Note that physics becomes TOE invariant with comp. You can define  
physics by what is observable by *any* universal (Löbian) machine.  
Physics is invariant for the choice of the base phi_i.
Like Noether and Vic Stenger explains energy conservation (a physical  
law) by the time-translation invariance, comp explains the whole of  
physics by the phi_i invariance, somehow.


Bruno



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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 03 Mar 2014, at 01:50, LizR wrote:


On 3 March 2014 13:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to  
obey conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given  
that everything in the universe that had been studied over the  
previous 300 years or so appeared to obey these principles, why  
would they immediately assume that they wouldn't apply to a new  
discovery? And as it turned out, they were right. Neutrinos have  
observational consequences above and beyond being a mere  
accounting process in beta decay, or whatever it was, such as  
being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical  
support (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).


Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing  
something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and  
thereby achieve conservation.  I don't think the general 
conservation of energy was considered a firm principle until the mid  
1800's and its violation was seriously entertained in the case of  
beta decay.  But the idea that the laws of physics should not  
depend on time or place goes back much further and had broader  
historical support; not just empirical but also metaphysical.


But only because observations indicate that is how the universe  
works. (Actually we do have a theory that references a specific time  
- the Big Bang.- but I know what you mean.)


Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a  
universal clock.  How would it sound to put forth a theory that  
reference a specific time?  No one would accept it as fundamental.


However, Edgar's p-time would have seemed perfectly plausible to a  
Newtonian physicist.
Also, some processes do violate symmetries, and these have been  
duly detected, and scientists were duly surprised.
Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous  
symmetry and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim  
it's an absolute requirement (notice I said desiderata) but it's  
surprising how much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did you  
read Stenger's essay?  My main point though was to look a little  
askance at Tegmark, and others, idea that if we just get the right  
math, or the most elegant theory, then we'll know what's really  
real.  I don't think they pay enough attention to the fact that we  
make up the laws of physics.


I would dispute your use of just here! Obviously they are hopeful  
that we will eventually uncover the truth, even if we can never  
prove we've done so, but I'm not sure that is necessarily  
unrealistic, even if it proves to be impossible in practice.


I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he  
is at least trying to get his head around the big questions, like  
why is there something rather than nothing? In fact his is the only  
satisfactory answer to that question I've ever come across, which is  
quite an achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.


Tegmark fails to see that his hypothesis is a very old (even if  
ignored) theorem. And physics is not a mathematical structure among  
others, but a psychological/theological phenomenon arising from  
computer-science laws, that is arithmetical laws.
It is a physicist progress in the comp's consequence, but we are far  
in advance, in this list, to which Tegmark participated, but he missed  
both philosophy of mind and logic.
Then a mistery: his last paper on consciousness regresses a lot from  
his paper and book. He seems to still miss the FPI, even if Jason's  
quote of Tegmark seems to show he get the step 3 that is the FPI, (but  
I explained it to him,  so his lack of reference is a bit sad from the  
human pov. He follows a common tradition here, like Chalmers).


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-02 Thread Kim Jones


On 2 Mar 2014, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 
 On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote:
 
 
 
 Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
 
 On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.
 
 Bruno
 
 How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers.
 
 Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn 
 mathematician :)
 
 I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep and 
 profound though.


Yes. Tell me: are the following equivalent statements to a literally-minded 
stubborn mathematician like you:

4 + 1 = 5

1 + 4 = 5

2 + 3 = 5

3 + 2 = 5

because to a lateral-thinking, alternative-seeking musical thinker like moi 
they are not. You only have to perform (ie clap or tap out)  4 + 1 followed by 
1 + 4 to see ( ie hear - ratiocinate) that they are not equivalent in the 
musical sense.

Give me  a shout if you cannot clap these sentences accurately.

K

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 03 Mar 2014, at 08:32, Kim Jones wrote:



On 2 Mar 2014, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote:




Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL


On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.

Bruno


How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers.


Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn  
mathematician :)


I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep  
and profound though.



Yes. Tell me: are the following equivalent statements to a literally- 
minded stubborn mathematician like you:


4 + 1 = 5

1 + 4 = 5

2 + 3 = 5

3 + 2 = 5


They are equivalent in many senses, and not equivalent in many other  
senses.


They are equivalent semantically, but then with classical semantics,  
all true statement are equivalent.
I mean that if you have the truth that 4+1 = 5 then 1+4=5. That is:  
(4+1= 5 - 1+4=5) is true.


They are deductively equivalent in RA, PA, ZF, etc. because such  
theories can prove the equivalence above.


They are not equivalent in any procedural sense. adding 1 to 4 is not  
the same thing than adding 4 to 1. It happens that the result is the  
same, but the procedure is not.


In fact equivalent means nothing, if you don't stipulate the  
relation of equivalence applied.









because to a lateral-thinking, alternative-seeking musical thinker  
like moi they are not.


OK. But I need your equivalence relation.




You only have to perform (ie clap or tap out)  4 + 1 followed by 1 +  
4 to see ( ie hear - ratiocinate) that they are not equivalent in  
the musical sense.


OK, in the musical sense, assuming + introduce a time delay in the  
claps, they are not.





Give me  a shout if you cannot clap these sentences accurately.


Actually, your clap view of numbers make 1+x non equivalent with x+1  
useful for the infinite ordinals.


1 + omega = omega

that is clap followed by clap clap clap clap ... is considered as  
equivalent to clap clap clap ...
The + does not add delay, for the ordinal, unless there are an  
infinity, and so:


omega + 1 is not = to omega,

clap, clap, clap, clap, ,  clap ≠  clap, clap, clap,  
clap, ,


That's a different rhythm indeed.

Bruno






K

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of  
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The  
Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From.


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is,  
it is a fact that 1+1=2.



These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.  
All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could  
= mustard.


It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1 would  
still be equal to 2.




Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply  
to everything.


1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that theory.



Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one  
raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the  
sense which objects make when we count them.


No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.



That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond  
literal objects to virtual objects,


If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an  
hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.





but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.


You don't know that.


It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is  
already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a  
thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or  
be anything.


OK, but your argument have never shown that.

Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:



If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what  
evidence does this occur?
Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing -  
even more fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could  
see this logic in a pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very  
large number of atoms, but if math is to be the superstructure  
underlying everything then I - speaking for myself - am not  
satisfied by saying it just is a fact.



But do you agree with 1+1=2?

Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, in my theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting  
things is that Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2 is also a theorem.


Bruno




Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote:



Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of  
distinct
objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of  
Reason and

Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From.

In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing  
out of
our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of  
reality, or

is it an emergent phenomena?
Chris


In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from  
assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of  
the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic,  
or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably  
redundant or wrong.


I gave more that one TOE as examples.

Bruno


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number  
regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what  
numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was  
prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used  
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable  
consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny  
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a  
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our  
theory that the world consists of countable things - whether it  
really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non  
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the  
theology, etc.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:





Personally the notion that all that exists is comp  information –  
encoded on what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I  
understand how some cling to a fundamental material realism; after  
all it does seem so very real. However when you get right down to it  
all we have is measured values of things and meters by which we  
measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience of our  
own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that  
we can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we  
measure it.
I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read  
a bit each day when I break for lunch – so this is partly  
influencing this train of thought. By the way enjoyed his  
description of quantum computing and how in a sense q-bits are  
leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every possible  
outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it  
that I had never read before.
Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the  
idea of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul  
is an emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and  
breadth of parallelism and vastness of scale of the information  
system in which it is self-emergent.


Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is:  
Every information system, at least that I have ever been aware of,  
requires a substrate medium upon which to encode itself;


If you agree that 1+1=2, then you can prove that universal numlbers  
exists, and those will defined the relative implementations of  
computational histories.


We have top start from some theory, in all case. And the TOE that we  
can derived from comp are just the minimal part common to basically  
all scientific theories.


Then we can explain even why we cannot explain where our beliefs in  
the number comes from. The theory of Lakoff presumes implicitly  
numbers, and much more.





information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding  
existing on some substrate system. I would like to avoid the  
infinite regression of stopping at the point of describing systems  
as existing upon other and requiring other substrate systems that  
themselves require substrates themselves described as information  
again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally.



We can start from:

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

We don't need more. Just definitions.




It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded  
in a very simple substrate system given enough replication of  
elements… a simple binary state machine could suffice, given enough  
bits.

But what are the bits encoded on?


Elementary arithmetic is enough. But the two axioms Kxy=x + Sxyz =  
xz(yz) too.






At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are  
back to where we first started…. How did that arise or come to be?  
If for example we say that math is reducible to logic or set theory  
then what of sets and the various set operations?


Math is not reducible to a theory. machine's math is already not  
reducible to a theory. Nor are machine's knowledge.


Computationalism refutes reductionism of most conception we can have  
on numbers and machine.





What of enumerations? These simplest of simple things. Can you  
reduce the {} null set?

What does it arise from?


In this case you can reduce it to number theory.

Your point seems to be that we must start from something non trivial,  
and you are right on this. My point is that if we believe that the  
brain is a sort of machine, then arithmetic is not just enough, but  
more is non sensical or redundant at the basic level.






Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which  
everything else is tapestried over is unanswerable; it is something  
that keeps coming back to itch my ears.


Arithmetic is enough if you can believe in comp, and plausibly too  
much or not enough if comp is false.






Am interested in hearing what some of you may have to say about this  
universe of the most simple things: numbers, sets; and the very  
simple base operators -- {+-*/=!^()} etc. that operate on these  
enumerable entities and the logical operators {and, or, xor}


You need much less. I will soon (or a bit later) explain explicitly  
how to derive matter and mind from


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

with comp at the meta-level.



What is a number? Doesn’t it only have meaning in the sense that it  
is greater  than the number that is less than it  less than the one  
greater than it? Does the concept of a number actually even have any  
meaning outside of being thought of as being a member of the  
enumerable set {1,2,3,4,… n}?In other words ‘3’ by itself  
means nothing and is nothing; it only means something in terms of  
the set of

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On 01 Mar 2014, at 08:39, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of LizR


Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number  
regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers  
are, or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in  
the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used to work out  
what happened in the early universe, with observable consequences  
now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny this, but I  
haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a suggestion of one) to  
indicate otherwise.


Couldn't one argue that 17 (and all primes) are artifacts of the  
ontology of math; that they necessarily arise from and within it.  
Does the seeming fact that we cannot have math without primes;  
therefore imply that math - for lack of better words - just is?

That is quite a leap - IMO.

Sigma_1 arithmetic just *is*. That is a very tiny part of math, and it  
cannot be derived logically from anything less rich. Then you can  
derive everything in math and physics from it.  Including physics  
makes comp testable.


Bruno





Chris

On 1 March 2014 18:16, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com  
wrote:


If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what  
evidence does this occur?
Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing -  
even more fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could  
see this logic in a pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very  
large number of atoms, but if math is to be the superstructure  
underlying everything then I - speaking for myself - am not  
satisfied by saying it just is a fact.

Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:48:48 PM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
is a fact that 1+1=2.

These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All it
takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard.
Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to
everything. Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
raining cloud.

(I'll try to elaborate and clarify in MSR terms; apologies if I get it
wrong or miss the topic, as it is very high level stuff...)

And since every raindrop can in principle be assigned to a cloud, the
number of raindrops equals the number of possible clouds which also equal
one (because normative brain cloud), which equals two (as sense is
abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects to
virtual objects with no subjective interior, so who cares, right?), which
equals mustard in your sense brain individuality map, which isn't the
territory, as you all know by now.

I just asked my mustard bottle in the fridge, and it confirmed no desire
for a subjective interior feeling of being, with its silence. Why would an
entity be silent if it had subjective interior feeling? You don't think
mustard bottles chat on internet lists about their internal state while
staying silent via some mustard-yellow-spicy-wireless LAN emergent qualia
fridge intelligence, do you? Ha, gottcha! That's where we miss perhaps the
subtleties of MSR.

I really wish this would be the final word and champion MSR as the final
TOE, because the day we can convince our banks of this point, everybody
with a positive balance becomes infinitely rich and everybody with negative
balance gets some fuzzy amount of mustard.

Maybe then I could afford the time to thoroughly understand MSR's main
points, which again, as enumerated and therefore arithmetic points, all
abstract themselves into a language which extend it beyond literal objects
to virtual objects with no subjective interior desire territories, thus
boiling it down to one brain point wherein, to my amazement, Silicon
Valley, MSR, NSA meet, chanting:

the cloud!

The cloud as the mustard of sense.

But I don't know if I have that time to really grasp MSR yet. It's my
first post working with it... so how am I doing, Craig? PGC

What a charming satire. So fresh and witty. It reminds me of one of the
gentlemen in the front row of this painting:

http://nevermindgallery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/w/rw016.jpg

Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the sense which objects
make when we count them. That sense is abstracted into a language which
extends it beyond literal objects to virtual objects, but no matter what
you do with math, it has no subjective interior. It's about doing and
knowing that is desired by what which is already feeling and being. Doing
and knowing by itself, if such a thing could exist, would be information,
but it could never feel or be anything.

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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is
a fact that 1+1=2.

Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what evidence does
this occur?

Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing - even more
fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could see this logic in a
pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very large number of atoms, but
if math is to be the superstructure underlying everything then I - speaking
for myself - am not satisfied by saying it just is a fact.

But do you agree with 1+1=2?

I agree that math is internally consistent and that within mathematical
ontology it is self-consistent. Furthermore it seems to crop up in reality
again and again. Patterns, equations, such as say the Fibonacci series
manifesting in so many unrelated places; the universe in its reduced symbol
set of smeared quarks and leptons; its constants and various cardinal
values and states such as spin, color, charge etc. - it does all seem very
binary and mathematical.

I however remain curious, where 1 came from, and even before 1, the null
set. the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more than nothing. It
takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this most
reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up, perhaps because it
is unknowable.

I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating infinite
forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism operating over layer
and layers of stochastic boundaries. 

Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, in my theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting things is
that Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2 is also a theorem.

Sure. an emergent phenomena; don't really have any existential issues with
my being, being emergent.. In fact I rather like the idea of emerging into
being. It fits with the brains massive parallelism and lack of any central
operating system (that we have found). I emerge; therefore I am.

Chris

Bruno

Chris

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

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

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

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 1 March 2014 14:36, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it 
 is a fact that 1+1=2.

 These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All 
 it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. 
 Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to 
 everything.


 If it's a fact, it's irrelevant whether my brain thinks it's mustard.


Not if you're the only person left in the universe. I don't think that your 
brain thinks anything, except maybe about electrochemical ratios and 
biochemical synthesis. What decides what is relevant?
 

  

  Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining 
 cloud. Math is about a very specific


 Please don't come out with the cloud example,  I've heard that so many 
 times but it's never become any more relevant. Surely you know I'm talking 
 about the abstract concepts?


Why would abstract concepts be more relevant than examples from reality?
 

  

  aspect of sense - the sense which objects make when we count them. That 
 sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects 
 to virtual objects, but no matter what you do with math, it has no 
 subjective interior. It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what 
 which is already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a 
 thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be 
 anything. 


 Well, that's me told. Next time I want to make a point with you is it OK 
 if I quote I am the Walrus ?


Is Well, that's me told. a line in I am the Walrus?

Craig

 



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 2 March 2014 00:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 1 March 2014 14:36, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
 is a fact that 1+1=2.

 These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All
 it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard.
 Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to
 everything.


 If it's a fact, it's irrelevant whether my brain thinks it's mustard.


 Not if you're the only person left in the universe. I don't think that
 your brain thinks anything, except maybe about electrochemical ratios and
 biochemical synthesis. What decides what is relevant?


No idea, I'm too busy deciding on which electrochemical rations to wear.





  Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining
 cloud. Math is about a very specific


 Please don't come out with the cloud example,  I've heard that so many
 times but it's never become any more relevant. Surely you know I'm talking
 about the abstract concepts?


 Why would abstract concepts be more relevant than examples from reality?


That question only makes sense if you have already decided that physical
reality is real and abstract concepts aren't. (Yet oddly, physics is
unprovable, while maths apparently isn't.)

But the answer is that we're talking about the origin of maths. In that
context it seems rather likely that abstract concepts are more relevant
than reality.





  aspect of sense - the sense which objects make when we count them. That
 sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects
 to virtual objects, but no matter what you do with math, it has no
 subjective interior. It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what
 which is already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a
 thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be
 anything.


 Well, that's me told. Next time I want to make a point with you is it OK
 if I quote I am the Walrus ?


 Is Well, that's me told. a line in I am the Walrus?

 No, it's more of a comment from Jonathan Hoag, the famous art critic.

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Wee small hours in Auckland too, almost. Good night fellow mathenauts.

On 2 March 2014 00:01, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I would like to respond... and thanks for getting into detail, but I need to
 wait till tomorrow - it is the wee morning hour here in Seattle now.
 Interesting stuff.

 Chris




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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it 
 is a fact that 1+1=2.


 These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All it 
 takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. 


 It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1 would 
 still be equal to 2. 


Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.
 




 Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to 
 everything. 


 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that theory. 


Nothing can = anything independently of sense.
 




 Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining 
 cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the sense which 
 objects make when we count them. 


 No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.


Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling 
through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to the 
objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.
 




 That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal 
 objects to virtual objects, 


 If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an 
 hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.


A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a bucket-like 
shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.
 




 but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior. 


 You don't know that.


I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and that I 
have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.
 



 It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is already 
 feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a thing could 
 exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be anything. 


 OK, but your argument have never shown that.


No argument can show truths related to consciousness, you have to make the 
argument your own, and then you should see it for yourself.

Craig
 


 Bruno




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


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





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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:46:44 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 1 March 2014 19:04, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote:

  On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
  
 Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number 
 regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, 
 or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in the first 
 instants of the big bang - maths has been used to work out what happened in 
 the early universe, with observable consequences now). There's a lot of 
 hand waving going on to deny this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument 
 (or even a suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


 To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory 
 that the world consists of countable things - whether it really is, is 
 questionable.

 That's a different question. I'm not arguing for the world being based on 
 maths, I'm trying to answer the question in the thread title - where does 
 the maths come from? My answer is that it appears to just be a fact, or to 
 put it another way it comes from the fact that it couldn't be any other way 
 (17 couldn't be non-prime, for example, because there is no way to arrange 
 17 objects, abstract or real, that lets them fitt on the intersections of a 
 grid and exactly fill a rectangle).


Keep going. Where does fact come from? What is the capacity which 
determines what ways can and cannot be?

Sense. Where else?
 

 If you think that 17 being prime is a tautology (I may have misunderstood 
 what you said about, but *if* you do) then you appear to agree.



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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-01 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. The 
universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have no 
direct knowledge of the universe. They have only their internal mental 
simulation of the universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent 
they are able to live and function in a consistent universe. Consistency 
across maximum scope IS TRUTH.

In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some 
aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there 
is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and 
you come nearer to truth.

Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.

Edgar

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: 

  
  Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of   
  distinct 
  objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of   
  Reason and 
  Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From. 
  
  In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing   
  out of 
  our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of   
  reality, or 
  is it an emergent phenomena? 
  Chris 

 In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from   
 assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of   
 the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic,   
 or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably   
 redundant or wrong. 

 I gave more that one TOE as examples. 

 Bruno 


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





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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:00:54 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Bruno,

 This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. 


How do we know consistency though? Isn't the ability to detect and 
interpret consistency (through sense and sense-making) more primitive than 
the quality of truth or consistency?
 

 The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have 
 no direct knowledge of the universe. 


If people have no direct sense of the universe, then neither does anything 
else, and the expectation of some noumenal universe which nothing can ever 
have knowledge of it itself purely hypothetical. We have direct knowledge 
of our experience, and our experience of the universe is the only universe 
that we can ever refer to empirically. I do not know that the universe is 
consistent, since I am part of the universe I know that consistency is a 
chore. If I want to make sense and find truth, I have to participate in a 
process of intuitive comparisons and empirical methods.

They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe. 


We have the ability to mentally simulate, but we also have the ability to 
directly contact and control external physical realities. If we did not, 
then it would not matter how bad our simulations were.
 

 To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live and 
 function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum scope IS 
 TRUTH.


I agree, but would qualify it: Maximum appreciation of the significance of 
maximum consistency across the maximum scope is truth. Without appreciation 
of significance, consistency is merely a repeating coincidence with no 
expectation of consequence.


 In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some 
 aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there 
 is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and 
 you come nearer to truth.

 Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.


Except that consistency can be projected by the mind itself. When all 
inconsistency vanishes, complete delusion can be achieved as well. 

Craig
 


 Edgar

 On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: 

  
  Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of   
  distinct 
  objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of   
  Reason and 
  Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From. 
  
  In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing   
  out of 
  our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of   
  reality, or 
  is it an emergent phenomena? 
  Chris 

 In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from   
 assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of   
 the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic,   
 or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably   
 redundant or wrong. 

 I gave more that one TOE as examples. 

 Bruno 


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





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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:48:48 PM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
is a fact that 1+1=2.

These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All
it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard.
Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to
everything. Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
raining cloud.

(I'll try to elaborate and clarify in MSR terms; apologies if I get it
wrong or miss the topic, as it is very high level stuff...)

the cloud!

The cloud as the mustard of sense.

But I don't know if I have that time to really grasp MSR yet. It's my
first post working with it... so how am I doing, Craig? PGC

What a charming satire. So fresh and witty. It reminds me of one of the
gentlemen in the front row of this painting:

Don't show me a painting; convince the banks!

http://nevermindgallery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/w/rw016.jpg

That painting is just a representation of 1s and 0s, devoid of any interior
subjectivity, so who cares?

But if you allow this string of 1s and 0s to actually count as a painting
(!), then I'm the drunk cowboy of course in front of the front row.
Champion of MSR, I don't wear red because red burns retinas of sense. Red
is the over-literalization of sense, and responsible for science's
inconsistencies, as I'll demonstrate sense to show.

Your work is just the start and my novel calibration of MSRDAPT (D for
digital, Actualness, P-time), is already widening MSR's original scope, to
allow P-time actualness and paintings, represented digitally to be
subjectively sensed paintings, with an interior subjective life for the
sensing beholder at some screen, like the one you just posted. In original
MSR it would just be devoid of any sense, as implemented by 1s and 0s. In
MSRD, these 1s and 0s can be a painting in which you share sense with me,
without the actual painting's physical sense presence.

It was said people on these lists are not flexible and never change their
minds. I went from Plato to MSRD in one post. I'll keep mastering P-time
actualness as well, although I won't buy any books until you convince the
banks.

For example: since the Universe is consistent, I as a part of it am
consistent, so my statements are consistent; thus MSRD and P-time are
reconcilable and consistent, because they cannot not be; otherwise
everything would fall apart, i.e. no buckets of water and clouds
experienced right now.

Who cares about inconsistencies of science? The universe is obviously
here, and so is consistency. Inconsistency is merely the locus of the
spectrum of internally void subjective representations, where the map isn't
territory (so I port some old MSR here into the new model) because
objective, which fails to account for real buckets of water in a consistent
and true universe, giving us only abstractions and equations. This is why
sense uses

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-01 Thread John Mikes

Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

*The TOE extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of addition and
multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you can prove the
existence of the universal numbers and or all their computations, and even
interview the Löbian numbers, on what is possible for them, in different
relative sense.*

*So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is
impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making
arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.*

*God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added Add and
Multiply. *
*Basically. - **Bruno*

*Start;*  TOE extracted from comp - so we are talking about a fraction of
everything, the part as extracted. I like to consider Everything as
infinite and all, beyond what we can know about, identify or understand.

*Finish:* GOD created the integers - and the World, and the Angels,
And(faith).  He
(or She, or It) added Add and multiply - nothing else.
(Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of children).

How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply integers, to
get *0.123456*?
or *irrational* numbers? I described here already my 'story' of the Roman
numbers before the invention of zero, based on TWO hands (with fingers, '5'
one palm- two fingers)..
JM



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 28 Feb 2014, at 08:20, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 Personally the notion that all that exists is comp  information - encoded
 on what though? - Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some
 cling to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very
 real. However when you get right down to it all we have is measured values
 of things and meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated
 in the experience of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in
 the end all that we can say for sure about anything is the value it has
 when we measure it.
 I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark's book - I read a bit
 each day when I break for lunch - so this is partly influencing this train
 of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how
 in a sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every
 possible outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it
 that I had never read before.
 Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea
 of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an
 emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of
 parallelism and vastness of scale of the information system in which it is
 self-emergent.

 Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every
 information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a
 substrate medium upon which to encode itself; information seems describable
 in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on some substrate system. I
 would like to avoid the infinite regression of stopping at the point of
 describing systems as existing upon other and requiring other substrate
 systems that themselves require substrates themselves described as
 information again requiring some substrate... repeat eternally.
 It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a
 very simple substrate system given enough replication of elements... a simple
 binary state machine could suffice, given enough bits.
 But what are the bits encoded on?

 At some point reductionism can no longer reduce And then we are back to
 where we first started How did that arise or come to be? If for example
 we say that math is reducible to logic or set theory then what of sets and
 the various set operations? What of enumerations? These simplest of simple
 things. Can you reduce the {} null set?
 What does it arise from?

 Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which everything
 else is tapestried over is unanswerable; it is something that keeps coming
 back to itch my ears.

 Am interested in hearing what some of you may have to say about this
 universe of the most simple things: numbers, sets; and the very simple base
 operators -- {+-*/=!^()} etc. that operate on these enumerable entities and
 the logical operators {and, or, xor}

 What is a number? Doesn't it only have meaning in the sense that it is
 greater  than the number that is less than it  less than the one greater
 than it? Does the concept of a number actually even have any meaning
 outside of being thought of as being a member of the enumerable set
 {1,2,3,4,... n}?In other words '3' by itself means nothing and is
 nothing; it only means something in terms of the set of numbers as in:
 234... n-1n

 And what of the simple operators. When we say a + b = c   we are dealing
 with two separate kinds of entities, with one {a,b,c} being quantities or
 values and {+,=} being the two operators that

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-01 Thread John Mikes

Liz:

subatomic physics does not indicate anything. We created the figment
*physics* by our misunderstanding of partial phenomena into our temporary
state of  mental inventory we had at the approriate time. Macro, atomic,
subatomic whatever.

JM


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:09 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 March 2014 11:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

 If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
 is a fact that 1+1=2.


 Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct
 objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of Reason
 and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From.


 It isn't just us. Subatomic physics indicates that the world consists of
 distinct objects, and keeps track of the number of them.

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


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 2 March 2014 09:28, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Liz:

 subatomic physics does not indicate anything. We created the figment
 *physics* by our misunderstanding of partial phenomena into our temporary
 state of  mental inventory we had at the approriate time. Macro, atomic,
 subatomic whatever.


Oh. OK.

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is a fact that 
1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct objects and 
counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez 
Where Mathematics Comes From.


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.


I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying yes to the doctor - though it may be 
inconsistent with other parts of your argument like the UDA.


Brent

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number regardless of whether 
anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even 
alive (e.g. it was prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used 
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable consequences now). 
There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny this, but I haven't seen a knock down 
argument (or even a suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what? That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory that the world 
consists of countable things - whether it really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non mechanically countable 
things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the theology, etc.


Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka numbers.  I think you're slipping into 
mysticism, Bruno.


Brent

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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:

Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number regardless
of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, or indeed
whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in the first instants of the
big bang - maths has been used to work out what happened in the early
universe, with observable consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving
going on to deny this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.

To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory that
the world consists of countable things - whether it really is, is
questionable.

Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the
theology, etc.

Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka numbers.  I think
you're slipping into mysticism, Bruno.

Brent ~ are you saying that arithmetic is the operation (with potential
ordering  grouping) that takes numeric input and produces numeric output? I
find it hard to conceive of math without also contemporaneously envisioning
enumerable entities. 

Chris

Brent

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

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

2014-03-01 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
 On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:
 
 On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:
 If it's all math, then where does math come from?
 
 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
 That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
 
 Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of
 distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The
 Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes
 From.
 
 That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.
 
 I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying yes to the doctor
 - though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument
 like the UDA.
 
 Brent
 

I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's
original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from
numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would
an example of Hofstadters strange loop.

IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the base of
everything at times in the past too?

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 3/1/2014 6:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *meekerdb

*Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:31 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:



On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:

Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number 
regardless of
whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, or indeed 
whether
anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in the first instants of the 
big bang -
maths has been used to work out what happened in the early universe, 
with
observable consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to 
deny
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a suggestion of 
one) to
indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory that 
the
world consists of countable things - whether it really is, is questionable.

Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non 
mechanically
countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the theology, etc.


Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka numbers.  I think you're slipping 
into mysticism, Bruno.


Brent ~ are you saying that arithmetic is the operation (with potential ordering  
grouping) that takes numeric input and produces numeric output? I find it hard to 
conceive of math without also contemporaneously envisioning enumerable entities.




I think I could conceive of some math without enumerable entities; for example parts of 
topology and real analysis don't seem to depend on counting.  But I was just expressing 
incredulity with Bruno's post.  He says we only need believe that 17 is prime to use 
arithmetic realism.  Then he says there are no countable things in his theory!??


Brent

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 3/1/2014 7:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

If it's all math, then where does math come from?

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.

Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The
Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes
From.

That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.

I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying yes to the doctor
- though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument
like the UDA.

Brent


I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's
original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from
numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would
an example of Hofstadters strange loop.

IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the base of
everything at times in the past too?


Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject the idea that 
there is an base.


Brent

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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:44 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Personally the notion that all that exists is comp  information – encoded on 
what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some cling 
to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very real. However 
when you get right down to it all we have is measured values of things and 
meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience 
of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that we 
can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we measure it.

I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read a bit each 
day when I break for lunch – so this is partly influencing this train of 
thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how in a 
sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every possible 
outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it that I had 
never read before.

Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea of 
comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an emergent 
phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of parallelism and 
vastness of scale of the information system in which it is self-emergent.

Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every 
information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a 
substrate medium upon which to encode itself; 

If you agree that 1+1=2, then you can prove that universal numlbers exists, and 
those will defined the relative implementations of computational histories.

We have top start from some theory, in all case. And the TOE that we can 
derived from comp are just the minimal part common to basically all scientific 
theories.

Then we can explain even why we cannot explain where our beliefs in the number 
comes from. The theory of Lakoff presumes implicitly numbers, and much more.

information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on 
some substrate system. I would like to avoid the infinite regression of 
stopping at the point of describing systems as existing upon other and 
requiring other substrate systems that themselves require substrates themselves 
described as information again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally.

We can start from:

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

We don't need more. Just definitions.

What about sets {0,1…n}? Isn’t the conceptual entity of the set necessary in 
order to map orders of operation for example grouping operations of lower 
precedence to ensure they are performed first for example; or for ordering 
enumerable or at least identifiable entities into groups that have some set of 
characteristics.

Also are you arguing that the ≠   =  comparators suffice? What about “”? A 
lot of algorithms (sorting for example) are implemented in terms of the “” 
comparator, that would seem very difficult to do without. 

It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a very 
simple substrate system given enough replication of elements… a simple binary 
state machine could suffice, given enough bits.

But what are the bits encoded on?

Elementary arithmetic is enough. But the two axioms Kxy=x + Sxyz = xz(yz) too.

I am unfamiliar with this axiom.

At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are back to where 
we first started…. How did that arise or come to be? If for example we say that 
math is reducible to logic or set theory then what of sets and the various set 
operations? 

Math is not reducible to a theory. machine's math is already not reducible to a 
theory. Nor are machine's knowledge.

Computationalism refutes reductionism of most conception we can have on numbers 
and machine.

What of enumerations? These simplest of simple things. Can you reduce the {} 
null set?

What does it arise from?

In this case you can reduce it to number theory.

Your point seems to be that we must start from something non trivial, and you 
are right on this. My point is that if we believe that the brain is a sort of 
machine, then arithmetic is not just enough, but more is non sensical or 
redundant at the basic level.

Given enough parallelism and depth of recursion; given a vast enough networked 
system, it is amazing what emerges. I agree in principal that all that is 
really required is some very basic computationally self-catalyzing system and 
the rest emerges.

Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 2 March 2014 19:57, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Okay that one stretched my brain like a balloon as it waved trough my
 neural net. What if one admits the possibility retro-causality? Physicist
 as eminent as Wheeler  Feynman have speculated on it and Huw Price has
 suggested that it could explain quantum entanglement.

 Maybe there is no base... and reality itself emerges out of some process of
 retro-causality ... okay maybe this is a little far out The serpent eats
 its tail.


Personally I think you have to have a base. That wouldn't prohibit
retrocausal explanations, of course, because the base would have to be
outside space-time.

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

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?



-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 7:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
 On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:

 On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:
 If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
 That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
 Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of 
 distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The 
 Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes 
 From.
 That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.
 I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying yes to the doctor
 - though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument 
 like the UDA.

 Brent

 I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's 
 original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from 
 numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would 
 an example of Hofstadters strange loop.

 IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the 
 base of everything at times in the past too?

Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
origin or any primal causation.
Chris

Brent

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

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

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?