## Advertising

On 31 Aug, 21:31, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:31, Flammarion wrote: > > > > > > > On 28 Aug, 16:08, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:46, Flammarion wrote: > > >>> On 22 Aug, 08:21, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >>>> On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote: > > >>>>> 1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or > >>>>> generated > >>>>> by something else that does > >>>>> 2. I ontologically exist > >>>>> 3. According to you, I am generated by the UD > >>>>> 4. Therefore the UD must ontologically exist. > > >>>>> Step 4 is really step 0 which I have worked backwards > >>>>> to here > > >>>> 5. But the UD exists only mathematically. > > >>>> Thus, ontological existence = mathematical existence. > > >>>>> There is no usual one, since there is no one agreed ontology > >>>>> of mathematics. > > >>>> For sets and functions, you may be right. For numbers, there is a > >>>> general mathematical agreement. > > >>> No there isn't. > > >> What is the disagreement? > > > The age old debate about whether numbers exist > > You confuse the use of number in physics, and in cognitive science, > and in computer science, with metaphysical discussion I do avoid. When > I say that there is no disagreement about the numbers, I mean that > most scientist agree on the use of the classical tautologies in > arithmetic. Nothing more. Or show me where. tautologies don't buy you a UD. Unicorns=unicorns doesn;t mean there are any unicorns. > >>>> There may be no philosophical > >>>> argument, but this is not relevant to undersatnd the non > >>>> philosophical > >>>> reasoning. > > >>> Ontology is philosophy. You can't settle ontological quesitons > >>> with mathematical proofs. > > >> Philosophy, or theology. OK. But comp is an assumption in cognitive- > >> science/philosophy/theology. > > > No. *CTM* is. "Comp* is your own fusion of CTM with > > Platonism > > Comp is CTM + "2+2 is equal to 4 or 2+2 is not equal to 4". AR qua truth does nto buy you a UD either > Wait I explain CT, you will see what I mean more easily. > >> It is an assumption that a form of > >> reincarnation is possible. > > >> This is not pure mathematics. UDA belongs > >> to the intersection of cognitive and physic science. UDA is not > >> purely > >> mathematical. > > > It is not going anywhere without some ontological > > assumptions either. since it has an ontological conclusion. > > I am using the hypothesis that my consciousness will be relatively > preserved by a transformation of my brain, and Church thesis. And the > conclusion is epistemological: comp -> physics is a branch of number > theory, but with a gift: that physics is part of a larger thing (and > splits into qualia and quanta). I don't make publicly ontological > commitment. I give a theory, theorems, and a practical way to test the > consequence of the theory. The fact that you don't majke your ontological assumptions explicit is just the problem. > >>>>> You are aware. are you not, that philosophers > >>>>> and mathematicians are still writing books and papers attacking > >>>>> and defending Platonism and other approaches? > > >>>> Platonism is used by both philosopher and mathematician as > >>>> something > >>>> far more general than arithmetical realism, on which all > >>>> mathematicians agree. > > >>> I am not concerned with argument about how many pixies exist. > > >> So a doubt about the existence of a large cardinal in set theory rise > >> a doubt about the existence of seven? > > > No. A doubt about the ontological existence of seven leads > > to a doubt about the rest. > > A doubt on seven, would destroy the argument. Indeed! > I personally don't believe in ontological seven, as far as I can make > a sense on that. Well, if the UD isn't ontological either, I am not being simulated on it. > >> I have use arithmetical realism, because I have never met any > >> difficulty, among mathematicians, physicians and computer scientist. > >> Nor even with philosophers, except some which just dodge the issues > >> of > >> showing what they miss in the argument. > > > Hmm. Well, you would say that, wouldn't you. > > I was thinking of you, and some old "friends". But at least, you make > the dodging in public, my "friends" never did. I thank you for that. > >> My work has been indeed rejected in Brussels, by philsophers. But it > >> has been defended a s a PhD thesis by a jury with mathematician, > >> computer scientist, physician (yes, not physicist, but doctor!). > > > But it is a philosophical thesis, since its conclusion is the nature > > of existence. > > Not at all. I see the bigness of the misunderstanding here. I just use > the scientific way to proceed in theology. Theology is philosophy and then some > This is what I like with the Church Turing thesis, it makes possible > to keep the agnostic scientific attitude in very deep question, and to > proceed by theories and verification, and this in a field that > atheists like to relegate to religious crackpot. > Atheists and other religious fundamentailist hates this work, but that > is normal. My work shows atheism and some religion are very close > compared to the abysse between atheism and agnosticism (be it on mind, > matter, god, or whatever). > Is that the problem? > > > > > > >>> The point remains: there *is* a debate so there is *not* a standard > >>> ontology. > > >>>> It is believed explcitly by many physicists too, > >>>> like David Deutsch, Roger Penrose, and those who use math in > >>>> physics. > > >>> I never said no-on beliieves Platonism. I said some > >>> people belive other things. Therefore it is contentious, > >>> therefore it is needs jsutification. > > >> It is more efficacious to see if the consequence of comp, believed by > >> many, are verified by nature. > > > It's the consequences of CTM+Platonism > > For once, that would not change the point. But it is *just* CTM, and > to define CTM properly, you need CT, and thus you need that minimal > form of arithmetical realism, just to accept that a machine stop or > does not stop, in principle. That's just bivalence, not any metaphysical realism > That is all I need. I need consciousness for the yes doctor, and I > show that physics resume to numbers relation, as some physicists > already agree, but for different reasons. Here, we have something > more. The reduction of physics to numbers goes through machine's > epistemology, and this is nice because I get the quanta with the > qualia, and their as complete as possible mathematics. If the machine does not exist its "epsitemology" can't be generating physics minds or anything else. > >>>>>> By comp, the ontic > >>>>>> theory of everything is shown to be any theory in which I can > >>>>>> represent the computable function. The very weak Robinson > >>>>>> Arithmetic > >>>>>> is already enough. > > >>>>> I am not interested in haggling over which pixies exist. > > >>>> This may be the root of your problem. > > >>>>>> comp = CTM. > > >>>>> It clearly isn't by the defintiion you gave in > >>>>> your SANE paper. > > >>>> All right. As I said: comp is CTM + "2 + 2 = 4". > > >>> Nope, mere truth does not buy the immaterial existence of a UD > > >> But from "2+2 = 4" and CT, you can derive the existence of UD. > > > Only the mathematical existence. > > Just what I need, to explain why machine, existing only > mathematically, will correctly believe in the limit that what they > called consciousness and why observable matter comes from the > impossible marriage of addition and multiplication. Only existig things believe. If mathematical existence=non-existence, nothing follows about my reality. > >>>>> Classical logic is just a formal rule. > > >>>> It depends on the realm in which you apply classical logic. In > >>>> computer science people admit that a running program will either > >>>> halt, > >>>> or not halt, even in case we don't know. This is a non formal use > >>>> of > >>>> classical logic. > > >>> It still does not demonstrate the immaterial existence of computers > >>> no-one has built. > > >> No one has ever build the prime numbers. > > > No. They were not built. they did not spontaneously spring > > into being, they do not exist at all. > > To one comment to another one, you contradict yourself. > Above you agree that the UD, and the prime numbers I presume, exists > in the mathematical sense, and now you say that prime numbers does not > exists at all. I have consistently maintained that mathematical "existence" is nothign ontologically, any more than Sherlock Holmes' "existence" is late vitorian London. Is it so hard to grasp that a word can have different meaning in different contexts? > Do or do not the UD and prime numbers exists in the mathematical sense? Sure. But that is fictive. Since real people do not srping from the pages of books. I am not springing from a merely mathematically existing UD. > >>>>> Bivalence is not Platonism > > >>>> Exactly. This is one more reason to distinguish carefully > >>>> "arithmetical realism" (bivalence in the realm of numbers), and > >>>> Platonism (something huge in philosophy and theology). > > >>> Even more reason to distinguish between AR qua truth and AR qua > >>> existence. > > >> Yes, and I use only AR qua truth. > > > Then you cannot come to any valid conclusion about my existence. > > Yes I can, once you say yes to the doctor. It is the whole point of UDA > +MGA. The UDA can have no point unless the UD really exists. > And you exists, indeed, but not materially. You are not made from > *substantial* particles nor waves, particles are made of infinities of > numbers relations, classified by group theory and white rabbits > "renormalization", in the CTM at least. > >> I may ask you what are your evidence for a primary matter, or for > >> your > >> notion of AR qua physical existence. > > > You dismiss matterial existence assuming Platonic existence. > > No, I assume material existence to show it epistemologically > contradictory by a reductio ad absurdo. Without Platonic existence. there is no UD, and nothing follows from the UDA > > I dismiss Platonic existene assuming material existence. > > I don't know what you mean by platonic existence. You certainly don't > dismiss the idea that classical logic can be used on arithmetical > propositions, are you? No. I mean immaterial existence. Somehting exists and it it is't material (as you say) then it is immaterial. It is up to you to continue the explanation of immaterial existence, since I don;t beleive in it. > > I may not have a proof, but neither do you. > > I propose a proof, and it looks like you don't have read it, because > you stop at step 0, by using a critics which is irrelevant up to step > 7, and defeated by step 8. If you read it, tell me where you have the > feeling that I am wrong. You can'ty pull out your UD at step 7 withiout justifiying Platonism at step 0. > From what I understand, only step 8 should be addressed by you. It is > the place where *primitive matter* is made non sensical in machine 's > epistemology. The machine does nto exist, so it has no beliefs. >Physicalism is incompatible with CTM, that is the > result. If it is wrong, let me known where the error has been made. I > am far to pretend no error could be found, but up to now, scientist > don't find it, and some philosophers dodge the issue. (Thanks to David > for having taught me the word "dodge" :) > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---