# Re: UDA revisited

```>>
>> 1) There is a platonic realm of number. Call it NUM, where numbers are
>> real and existence is the act of numerical computation and,
>> simultaneously, theorem proving in relation to numbers.
>
>
> I would separate completely "computations" which is an absolute notion
> (at least with Church thesis), and "proof" which has sense only
> relatively to the choice of a formal system, or theory, or machine.
>```
```
OK. It tend to mix them without thinking...The process is mixed in my
mind. It could be because I can see reality as a formal system.

>
>>
>> 2) There is a real realm of STUFF, where STUFF is real and existence is
>> also the act of computation and, simultaneously, theorem proving in
>> relation to STUFF.
>
> I stop here because that sentence does not convey sense for me.

I see reality as a formal system instantated with a huge number of
'axioms'. That makes it one huge proof. The act of computation and the act
of doing this massively parallel proof are the same thing.

>
> Also, I have read your paper which is much better written compared to
> this post (for example). I am not convinced by your argument because
> you don't take into account the whole field of "computational inductive
> inference(*)" which explains why machine can be very creative in front
> of novelty.

Yes I do. It's just irrelevant to the argment. It is not my aim to sort
that out. I have written a lot on this elsewhere.

In the appendix you see a hypothesis hn. This results from an act of
creativity. Creativity is about being rational and wrong. Scientific
behaviour then tests for the serendipity of actually being right (=tn).
That's how the process works. The novelty has to be _visible_ first. That
is the whole point. If you can;t see the novelty or recognise it then no
amopunt of creativity will help, because you'll never be able to know you
are right because you'll never know there's anything different in front of
you.

> Nevertheless I do agree with you; zombie cannot do science.

That's something then!

> But your argument is not so clear, at first sight it could give the
> feeling that it shows comp (or even just the weaker "strong AI") has to
> be false. Your appendix is less readable, so give me more time to
> figure out better the line of reasoning ....
>

The paper proves computationalism is false because the novelty involved is
only visible as (must be represented as) phenomena, not simulated
(computational models of) phenomena. The relationship between
computationalism and COMP I am not entirely sure yet.

>>
>> 3) We STUFF-beings are theorems in the continual unfolding proof that
>> is the STUFF realm.
>
> ?
Again... I see reality as a formal system instantated with a huge number
of 'axioms'. That makes it one huge proof.

>
>>
>> 4) NUM-beings, creatures of equivalent cognitive/intellectual
>> capability, would be continual unfolding proofs in the NUM realm.
>
>
> Replacing proof by computation would make sense here.
>

I can see I am going to sort his out.

>
>>
>> 5) We STUFF-beings can abstract the NUM realm and examine it logically
>> and computationally the various features of the NUM realm including
>> NUM-beings.
>>
>> 6) NUM-beings could abstract the STUFF realm and examine it logically
>> and computationally the various features of the STUFF realm including
>> STUFF-beings.
>>
>> 7) We STUFF-beings can imagine a STUFF-UD that can computationally
>> explore
>> the entire NUM realm.  The NUM-beings in the STUFF-UD are not
>> conscious,
>> but because STUFF-beings are external to the STUFF-UD, they have a god
>> perspective on the NUM realm.
>>
>> 8) NUM-beings can likewise imagine a NUM-UD that can computationally
>> explore the entire STUFF-realm. The STUFF-beings in the NUM-UD are not
>> conscious, but because NUM-beings are external to the NUM-UD, they
>> have a god perspective on the STUFF realm.
>>
>> 9) In the case of 7) and 8) this exploration does not create a NUM
>> realm or a STUFF realm, respectively.
>>
>> 10) STUFF-realm behaviour can be modelled in NUM-realm abstractions by
>> STUFF-being scientists. This is STUFF-science. Likewise NUM-realm
>> behaviour can be modelled in STUFF-realm 'abstractions' by NUM-being
>> scientists. This is NUM-science.
>>
>> 11) In this circumstance if 1)...10) , 'computationalism' in the
>> classical
>> computer science (strong-AI) sense is false in the NUM realm for
>> NUM-beings and in the STUFF realm for STUFF-beings.
>>
>> This is where I really falter.....
>>
>> 12) What has been termed COMP, however, is the hypothesis that the act
>> of
>> exploration in 5) and 6) reveals all the features of the realms thus
>> explored, not that computation actually creates the realms.
>>
>> erm....ish.
>> clues anyone?
>>
>> regards,
>
>
> What do you mean by STUFF ?
>
> Bruno
>

The simplest definition is that it is a monism, made of one thing. Some of
it behaves/looks like atoms, some of it behaves as space. The details are
not relevant. The UD in the STUFF realm (our universe) is (must be) made
of it. (in my EC formalism to come 'stuff' is a fluctuation).

If the NUM realm were to be instantated for real, (something I find very
very very hard to imagine, but must accept as a possibility). I see the
two realms as equal... but.. that we inhabit only one....we are made of
STUFF. If, through a creative act in the NUM realm, a NUM-being imagined
STUFF, then that being could explore our universe by simulating STUFF,
just the way we explore their universe by simulating NUM with STUFF. The
whole arrangement is consistent. In both realms computationalism
(simulation makes it equivalent to real) is false but useful.

I can see my way of thinking about things is very very different. I think
that you think our STUFF universe is made of NUM. Is that what your COMP
means? Because that assumption would define your sort of 'COMP'
hypothesis, I think. I cannot imagine the elemental building block of a
NUM universe that could actually come about, but I can imagine how a
STUFF-universe can come about. The fact that STUFF behaves, in certain
contexts, in ways that make it well suited to modelling with abstracted
NUM-behaviour is nice/very useful, but accidental. The same accidents
could probably happen in an instantated NUM-realm only in reverse. The
numbers could behave 'stuff-like'. But the scientists in the NUM realm
have no problems with abstraction  - their universe is made of it. They
wouldn't need to fiddle about with messy STUFF abstractions.

In my mind there could be an infinite number of other realms based on all
sorts of weird 'stuff', all existing in the same way, all interrelatable,
all a mathematics of a certain type. Each universe can abstract and
imagine and simulate all the others.

No wonder I struggle. I need all the help I can get to calibrate myself
properly. Progress has been made, though.

So maybe this is at the heart of it:

Colin:
NUM realm, STUFF realm different but interrelatable and we are in STUFF
Bruno:
Our realm (universe) is made of NUM? That we are actually in the
NUM-realm? All universes are NUM, just different instantations?

Is this it?

Colin

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at