> Le 09-août-06, à 18:08, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
> > Platonia has not been instantiated. Our universe has.
> The problem with such a conception is that it seems to need a form of
> dualism between Plato Heaven and terrestrial realities.
> With the comp hyp, all there is is (arithmetical) Platonia.
> Instanciation is relative and appears from inside.
I'm interested in building an AI inside this structure with us. There may be
a relationship between this AI and platonia in the same way (whatever way
that is) our perceptions may make use of it. Evolution didnt need to be all
fussed about it...neither am I. I could agree with you or disagree ...it
would have no effect on the outcome.
> > Being the stuff, the substrate. It's the only thing actually
> > instantiated.
> This seems, imo, contradicts what you I remember you said somewhere
> else (or I'm wrong?), mainly when you say, in a monist frame, that
> everything is relational.
The stuff is the relation happening. The particular relational outcome we
inhabit is it...the substrate...the structure of which we are part that
appears like it does to us inside it.
> >>> The fact is that
> > there
> >>> is no such thing as a 'third person'.
> >> Ontologically ?
> > No, experientially.
> > Nobody experiences 'third person'. Everybody has a 1st person
> > experience
> > only. There is no such thing as an objective view.
> I think that many people confuse third person view and 0 person "view".
> I will probably (try to) clarify this in the "roadmap-summary". I
> agree there is no "objective *view*, but I think there is a notion of
> objective reality, although such a reality is not necessarily knowable
> as such.
Nomenclature gnomes at work again! I think what you call "objective reality"
is what I call the substrate...the relational structure that is the
> > Furthermore it also seems to have us duped that further considerations
> > of
> > mathematical idealisations and abstractions in general likewise tells
> > us
> > something about the composition of the actual underlying natural
> > world....
> > for example that it is the result of a computer running one of our
> > abstractions.
> With comp I would say we can prove that "the composition of the
> underlying world" have to emerge, NOT as the result of a computer
> running one of our abstractions (like in Schmidhuber's theory for
> example) but on all possible computations existing in Platonia, and
> well defined through that miraculous Church's thesis. The quantum would
> emerge from digitalness seen from digital entity. Physical realities
> would be number theoretical realities as seen by relative numbers.
I'm interested in the 'natural mathematics' of the relational structure and
how it can be utilised by us to make artifical versions of us and the
creatures around us. The key to it is the messy, smelly meat called brain
material, not considerations of platonic realms or postulated computations
therein. It may be that what we find will be generalised later into COMP and
other systems of abstraction, but that will change nothing for me trying to
build an AI with the reality we inhabit. Like I said above...the structure
built us on its own...and didnt need a maths book to do it..because it
literally is the maths...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at