As I wrote in my response to Russell Standish: * I think [Russell's] 'kicks back' = physical = measurable in some way, and * I think 'exists' is a generic, irreducible, ultimate value. In fact it is THE generic, irreducible, ultimate value and it underlies mathematical objects such as numbers as well as everything else.
I think also [something of the waggy tail of this dog] that we are beset by irreducible paradox in our experience as conscious beings, which does not have to be terminally traumatic but does mean that we will always be prone to potentially embarrassing mistakes of perception and thought. NB: I will be happy to be proven wrong, but this will require that the proof is translatable into 'plain-English' :-) and, preferably points to clear empirical evidence for backup. My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, wherein it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate some or all of a person's body/brain function and the person will not notice any difference. The Yes Doctor hypothesis is a particular case of the digital emulation hypothesis in which it is asserted that, basically, ANYTHING can be digitally emulated if one had enough computational resources available. As this seems to me to be almost a version of Comp [at least as far as I have got with reading Bruno's exposition] then from my simple minded perspective it looks rather like assuming the very thing that needs to be demonstrated. Bruno:'All this provides mathematical clean interpretation of neoplatonist researchers (like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus). If you want I show that concerning machine's theology it is wrong to reify matter or nature. Note that I am using the term "materialism" in a weaker sense than its use in philosophy of mind. But materialism I mean the metaphysical reification of Matter. The idea that some primitive matter exists. ' MP: Well at least I can say now that I have some inkling of what 'machine's theology' means. However, as far as I can see it is inherent in the nature of consciousness to reify something. I have not seen anywhere a refutation of my favoured understanding of consciousness which is that a brain is creating a representation of its world and a representation of itself and representations of the relationships between self and world. The 'world' in question is reified by the maintenance and updating of these representations, this is what the brain does, this is what it is FOR. Our contemplation of numbers and other mathematical objects or the abstract entities posited as particles and energy packets etc., by modern physics is experientially and logically second to the pre-linguistic/non-linguistic representation of self in the world, mediated by cell assemblies constituting basic qualia. [In passing; a quale must embody this triple aspect of representing something about the world, something about oneself and something significant about relationships *between* that piece of the world and that rendition of 'self'.] I appreciate that the UDA and related treatments in mathematical philosophy, can be rigorous, and enormously potent in their implications for further speculation and development within their universe of discourse, but I remain very sceptical of any advertised potential to bootstrap the rest of the universe. I have been trying to create a worthy reply to Jason's posting of 14 Jan 07 on the Evidence for the simulation argument. In it I am trying to confront this very issue I think .I guess my basic complaint comes down to these things: * actual existence is an irreducible value or Values * structure entails more than just the existence of mathematical objects of/with numerically representable values, it entails differences and separation which are not just conceptual but ontological, so maybe what I am saying is that structure is in some way irreducible, which might be better put in some minimalist formula like: structuring has an irreducible minimum ontological dimensionality * this seems to require that we acknowledge that things which really exist ARE SOMEWHERE now - and I know Bruno has already asserted that this is not so 'if Comp is true' but I have certainly not encountered any kind of plain-English exposition that refutes the problem as I see it * the Church Thesis, as I understand it, is an assertion about digital computations saying, more or less, that any kind of digital computation can be emulated by and within another digital computation system, and this is fine as far as it goes but I have seen an argument put that there are various aspects of physical existence which cannot be translated exactly into digital representation, so any digital *emulation* will be a Zenoverse, o this was in an edition of New Scientist Magazine several years ago [and I will try and track down my paper copy because I don't have access to the on-line version like I do for Scientific American Magazine] of course Bruno and others will argue that they are not saying that OUR universe is being emulated but merely that it is numerically implemented, but as far as I can see all the 'teleporter' brand of arguments DO rely on emulation which must thus need effectively infinite resources if they are to 'fool' a scientifically competent victim [for indeed the fate of he or she who is 'read' will be death at that time, or else at very least they will be damaged goods when the door is opened again :-] * entropy is a significant feature of our universe which affects every aspect of our existence, and I maintain that, as much as anything else, it is the PRICE of our existence [of course Xians like to complicate this simple observation with subtle refinements, but I am Ex-Xian so I ignore these and do not enter into discussion about them]. I reckon it is valid to look upon entropy in our daily lives as the expansion of the universe writ small. Were the universe not expanding, there would be no space visible between the stars in the night sky, so the whole sky everywhere and always would look like the Sun and 'here' would be the same temperature as 'there', i.e. to hot for comfort :-) As we exist and reliable evidence seems to indicate that we live in a universe which is both unimaginably big and expanding, I believe we have to take entropy seriously. I think this poses problems for theories of infinite alternative universes which are purported to have some kind of connection with ours. And there I ran out of steam! Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 07-févr.-07, à 17:34, Mark Peaty a écrit : > > Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have > understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by > having figure this out by themselves.' > > MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to > understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! > > > Of course! Like babies can use their brain without understanding it ... > > > SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'? > > It concerns the stable appearance described by hypothetical "physical > theories" (like classical mechanics, QM, etc.). > > I found an argument showing that IF comp(*) is correct THEN those > stable appearances emerge from arithmetic as seen from internalized > point of views. Those can be described in computer science, and It > makes the comp hyp falsifiable: just extract the physical appearance > from comp and compare with nature. I will say more in a reply to Stathis. > > (*) comp means there exist a tuiring emulable level of description of > "myself" (whatever I am), meaning I would notice a functional > substitution made at that level). > > > And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? > > > There are mainly two sort of existence. The absolute fundamental one, > and the internal or phenomenological one. > If you understand the Universal Dovetailer Argument, you can > understand that, assuming the comp hypothesis, it is enough to > interpret existence by the existential quantifier in some first order > logic description of arithmetic. (like when you say "it exist a prime > number"). > All the other existence (like headache, but also bosons, fermions, > anyons, ...) are phenomelogical, and can be described by "It exist a > stable and coherent collection of machines correctly believing from > their point of view in "bosons", etc. (I simplify a bit). > > If you want, I say that IF comp is true, only numbers exist, all the > rest are dreams with relative degree of stability. > > > > These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' > questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people > are using these words, I don't think I can go any further. > > > You are welcome, and I don't believe there is dumb questions. I have > developed the Universal dovetailer argument, in the seventies, and it > was a pedagogical tools for explaining the mathematical theory which > consist in interviewing an universal machine on its possible physics. > I have published all this in the eighties and defend it as a thesis in > the nineties. I am aware it goes against materialism (based on the > concept of primary (aristotelian) materialism. > All this provides mathematical clean interpretation of neoplatonist > researchers (like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus). If you want I show that > concerning machine's theology it is wrong to reify matter or nature. > > Note that I am using the term "materialism" in a weaker sense than its > use in philosophy of mind. But materialism I mean the metaphysical > reification of Matter. The idea that some primitive matter exists. > > Hope this helps a bit. Perhaps you could study my last version of UDA > in my SANE04 paper to see the point. You can ask question for any > step. Then if you are willing to invest in mathematical logic, you > will see how the UDA can be made entirely mathematical *and* falsifiable. > > Bruno > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---