On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 22:43, Flammarion wrote:
> > On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote:
> >>> Any physcial theory is distinguished from an
> >>> Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only
> >>> some
> >>> possible mathematical structures. That is a general statement that
> >>> is not affected by juggling one theory for another. I have further
> >>> defined PM in *terms* of such contingency.
> >> That is actually very nice, because it follows the Plato-Aristotle-
> >> Plotinus definition of matter which I follow in AUDA.
> >> And this is enough for showing we don't have to reify matter (nor
> >> numbers).
> > If you are not reifying anything. then there is nothing, hen there is
> > no UD.
> I think you have a magical conception of reality.
> I don't need to reify number to believe in them.
> I just need to play with them.
I think *you* believe in magic. You believe that
if you write down hypothetical truths about what
an immaterial machine would believe, you can conclude
that everything has been conjured up by an immaterial machine.
It's like saying you can go from making a theoretical study of the
aerodynamics of Pegasus to taking a ride on Pegasus's back.
> >> I don't see, indeed, how you can both define matter from contingent
> >> structures and still pretend that matter is primitive.
> > I am saying that material existence *is* contingent
> > existence. It is not a structure of anything.
> Plotinus says that too! Me too.
> With church thesis this is can be made more precise in term of not-
> computable or not-provable, or some relativizations.
You're still not getting it. PM isn't a non-computable number.
It isn't mathematical at all. You really do think in a box..
> >> Somehow you talk like you would be able to be *conscious* of the
> >> existence of primitive matter.
> > Well, at least I don't talk about immaterial machines dreaming each
> > other.
> In arithmetic, that happens all the time. More below.
In arithemetic. people write down problems on blackboards and solve
> >> All the Peter Jones which are generated by the UD, in the Tarski or
> >> Fregean sense, (I don't care), will pretend that primitive matter
> >> does
> >> not exist, and if your argument goes through, for rational reason and
> >> logic (and not by mystical apprehension), those immaterial Peter
> >> Jones
> >> will prove *correctly* that they are material, and this is a
> >> contradiction.
> > It's not a contradiction of materialism. If there are no immaterial
> > PJ's, nothing is believed by them at all.
> Once you say yes to the doctor, there are immaterial Peter Jones. All
> your doppelganger emulating you, and being emulated at your level of
> substitution and below relatively occuring in the proof of the Sigma_1
> sentences of Robinson Arithmetic. (The arithmetical version of the UD).
There is no immaterial existence at all, and my agreeign to have
my brain physcially replicated doesn't prove there is.
> >> So to save a role to matter, you will have to make your
> >> "consciousness
> >> of primitive matter" relying on some non computational feature.
> > No. I just have to deny immaterial existence.
> You have to deny the theorem of elementary arithmetic, which are used
> by physicists (mostly through complex or trigonometric functions,
> which reintroduce the natural numbers in the continuum).
No. I don't have to deny their truth. I just have to deny that
existence is ontological existence. As I have been
> > You keep confusing the
> > idea
> > that theoretical entities could hypothetcially have certain beliefs
> > with the
> > actual existence of those entities and beliefs.
> You underestimate the dumbness of the DU, or sigma_1 arithmetic. It
> contains the emulation of all the quantum states of the milky way,
> with correct approximation of its neighborhood.
Since it does not exist, it does not contain anything.
>It is hard to
> recognize Peter Jones or Bruno Marchal from the huge relation and huge
> numbers involved, in some emulations, but it is easy to prove there
> exists, from the information the doctor got when scanning your brain.
All you can prove is that *if* the UD existed *then* it would
contain such-and-such. But it doesn't actually exist.
> In computations enough similar than our own most probable current one,
> it is a "theorem" that those entities have such or such beliefs, and
> behave in such and such ways, developing such and such discourses.
> >> Note that if you accept "standard comp", you have to accept that
> >> "Peter Jones is generated by the UD" makes sense, even if you cease
> >> to
> >> give referents to such "Peter Jones".
> > False. Standard comp says nothing about Platonism or AR.
> > I can give a Johnsonian refutation of the UD. I can't see it,
> > no-one can see it, so it ain't there.
> Standard comp says nothing about Plato's Platonism, but once you take
> the digitalness seriously enough, and CT, it is just standard computer
That is never going to get you further than mathematical existence.
You still need the futher step of showing mathematical existence is
ontological RITISAR existence.
> See "conscience & mécanisme" appendices for snapshot of a running
> mathematical DU. It exists mathematically. But it can be implemented
> "materially" , i.e. relatively to our most probable computations too.
So? It hasn't been.
> >> Fregean sense is enough to see
> >> that those Peter Jones would correctly (if you are correct) prove
> >> that
> >> they are material, when we know (reasoning outside the UD) than they
> >> are not.
> > So? That doesn't man I am wrong, because it doesn't mean I am in
> > the UD. The fact that we can see that a BIV has false beliefs
> > doesn't make us wrong
> > about anything.
> This is not the point. The point is that if you develop a correct
> argumentation that you are material, and that what we "see" around us
> is material, then the arithmetical P. Jone(s) will also find a correct
> argumentation that *they* are material, and that what they see is
So? If you develop a correct argument that you are running on a
when actually you are a BIV, then the BIV you will come up with that
argument too. Any argument whatsoever can be undermined by a sceptical
hypothesis, and there are many.
> The problem is that if you are correct in "our physical
> reality" their reasoning will be correct too, and false of course. But
> then your reasoning has to be false too.
> The only way to prevent this consists in saying that you are not
> Turing-emulable, or that you just don't know if you are in the UD or
The way to prevent it is the same way that all sceptical hypotheses
are prevented. You just note that there is not a scrap of evidence
for them. The only upshot of scepticism is that there is no
certainty, and we have to argue for the position of the greatest
>At this stage.
> Then with step-8, you "know", relatively to the comp act of faith,
> that you are already there. If you say yes to the doctor, you can bet,
> from computer science that you are already in the (N,x,+) matrix.
I can't be "in" something that has merely mathematical existence, any
more than I can be "in" Nanrnia
> >> Your argument should be non UD accessible, and thus non Turing
> >> emulable.
> > No, it just has to be right. The fact that a simulated me
> > *would8 be wrong doesn't mean the real me *is* wrong.
> But if you are correct in your reasoning, the simulated you has to be
> correct to.
False. You are treating all reasoning as being assumptionless and
apriori. Both me's could have arguments of equal validity, but one of
the argumetns could have true assumptions and the other false
because the truth of the assumptions (and hence the soundness of the
depends on external factors which vary.
>It is the same reasoning.
> Or you have a special sense making you know that you are the "real"
> one, but either that special sense is Turing emulable and your
> doppelganger inherit them, or it is not Turing emulable, and you
> better should say "no" to the doctor, because you would loose that
I don't need to strenuously argue against that there is something
special about me that makes me un-emulable , or un-BIV-able.
I just have to note that there is no evidence for either hypothesis.
The burden is on the sceptic.
> >> If you feel being primitively material, just say "no" to the doctor.
> > Why can't I just get a guarantee that he will re-incarnate me
> > materially?
> He will try.
> > Even if matter doesn't exist, I won't lose out.
> Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no
> doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot be primitive,
> assuming comp. Matter is more or less the border of the ignorance of
> universal machines (to be short). There is a fundamental physics which
> capture the invariant for all possible universal machine observation,
> and the rest is geography-history. Assuming comp the consistent-
> contingent obeys laws.
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
For more options, visit this group at