On 11 Sep 2009, at 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 22:12, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
>>> ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
>>> exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
>>> existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical
>>> statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued
>> I have never said that numbers exists because there are true
>> mathematical statements asserting their existence.
>> I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such
>> truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary
>> even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a
>> universal machine exists". In the usual mathematical sense, like
>> the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists.
> There is no usual sense of "exists" as the material I posted
> You have to be assuming that the existence of the UD is literal
> and Platonic since you care concluding that I am beign generated by
> it and
> my existeince is not merely metaphorical. The arguemnt doesn't go
Once you say "yes" to the doctor, there is a clear sense in which
"you" (that is your third person relative computational state, the one
the doctor digitalizes) exist in arithmetic, or exist arithmetically,
and this in infinite exemplars, relatively to an infinity of universal
numbers which executes the computation going through that state, and
this in the arithmetical sense, which implied a subtle mathematical
Then the MGA enforces that all universal machine first person future
experience is statistically dependent of a sum on all those
You may read books by Boolos and Jeffrey, or Epstein & Carnielli, to
see this. It is related to the representability of the computable
functions in Robinson Arithmetic together with Church thesis.
>> I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are
>> part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic
>> way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does
>> depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can
>> your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA.
> IF formalism is true there is no UD. It simply doesn't exist
> and doesn't genarate anything.
If formalism is true, there is no matter, either.
I am still waiting your formal definition of "primary matter", and of
I am not sure I understand how you can both believe to be a formalist
and believe in *primary* matter. To be honest.
Both in the West and the East we known since the dream argument that
*primary* matter is a metaphysical notion. That is the main difference
between the Platonist (in my sense) and the Aristotelicians. Atheists
and Christians are usually Aristotelicians, and their opposition hides
the deeper opposition between (weak) materialist Aristotelician and
It is here that the scientific attitude remind us to not commit
ontological commitment, and to be agnostic, except on refuted
I am agnostic on both Matter and God. With "B" = believe, "~" = not,
"m" = "Matter exists" and "g" ="God exists", taking in mind that I am
open for large sense of those words, I am agnostic in the sense that
~Bm & ~B~m & ~Bg & ~B~g. That's why I do research. (Matter with a big
"m" = primary matter. In Plotinus the "One" and "Matter" are both
beyond being/existence. That fits very well with AUDA.
I am not agnostic about consciousness, and persons, though.
>> And you don't need
>> really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine.
> Of course I need a real machine for a real interview.
You should avoid the use of 'real". In our context, this is the notion
which we are discussing, or (re)defining.
I have personally less doubt about my consciousness, and about my
believe in the prime numbers than in anything material. Physicists
avoid the question, except when interested in the conceptual problems
posed by QM.
Bohr was ready to decree sometimes ago that the notion of reality did
not apply to the microscopic. Nowadays we apply QM in cosmology, and
we accept the price, that is the multiverse, but this still avoid the
consciousness/reality relationship problem, when we assume comp. The
MGA shows that we have to be a little more radical than Everett if we
want to keep the CTM/comp idea.
As I just said on another forum: 'real' is a tricky notion.
>> All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But
>> fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp.
> Mathematical existence is metaphorical if mathematical existence is
In your theory. I have no problem with that. I just refer you to an
argument showing that such theories are epistemologically incompatible
with the comp hypothesis, or CTM.
> Their existence is literal if mathematical existence is metaphorical.
>> May be very fertile
>> one. Like galaxies and brains.
>> Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate
>> basic entities and relations in theories which are always
> False. There is nothing hypothetical about ingeous rock.
This is either mere wishful thinking, or you are not a machine. If you
are a machine, then you confuse stable hypothesis with truth. "de
mémoire de rose, je n'ai jamais vu mourir un jardinier" said the poet
Fontenelle (from a rose's memory "I have never seen a gardiner dying".
A possible misquote!
Of course, we can play with words. Comp does provide an explanation of
the existence of relatively stable patterns, already similar to
quantum mechanics, so there is a sense, in the comp frame, that some
rock are not hypothetical relatively to some observer. They are just
not composed of little material definite things, they are singular
maps on the local accessible probable computational histories. Why
this is described by a wave? Probably because things get symmetrical
and linear on the border of the universal machine ignorance, as the
logic of "sensible" and "intelligible" matter suggests (already, cf
With the SWE, you get a phenomenological account of the wave packet
reduction through a comp subjective differentiation (that's mainly the
work of Everett). But UDA shows that once you do that, you have to
pursue the differentiation up to the justification of the SWE itself,
from the numbers (or combinators, etc.).
You are stuck at step 0 (you told me) by irrelevant philosophical
considerations, I'm afraid. My point is mainly technical. UDA
transforms the mind-body or consciousness/reality problem into a
problem in mathematical computer science. If you are formalist, there
is a complete formalist reading on what I do, indeed that's AUDA. A
strict formalist can read UDA as a motivation for AUDA. But I have to
insist that formalists are in general arithmetical realist ... in the
formal sense of using the third excluded middle. I don't need more,
and I can technically recast the whole thing with less (by using
Markov intuitionistic principle).
The consistency of all this eventually resides in subtle aspects of
the incompleteness phenomena in theoretical computer science. "Comp"
is also for "computer science". Once you accept the excluded middle
principle, like most mathematicians, you discover there is a
"universe" full of living things there, developing complex views.
You can say everything is metaphor but your consciousness: it is up to
*your* work to make some things less metaphorical than others.
We share, "obviously" long histories, and we are deep objects which
can explain usual confusions about tokens and types.
And all this leads to a very elegant theory of everything. The
ontology is defined by "p is true" if "p" is provable in Robinson
Arithmetic. The epistemology is defined by "p is believed" if "p" is
provable by Peano Arithmetic, or by any Löbian Machine described by
Robinson Arithmetic. It is very concrete and a formalist should
appreciate. Perhaps you should forget UDA for a while, and come back
later, and study the "formal" AUDA part. It is my modest part in
theoretical computer science, relying on key theorems by Gödel, Löb,
Solovay, and many others. It is also a sequence of open problems, but
the contrary would have been surprising. And there is an heroin there:
the (classical) universal machine. And its little brother the
(quantum) universal machine plays some key role too. AUDA shed some
light on a two way road between those two notions.
To be sure other part of math shows that, like the relation between
braids and quantum computations, or Abramski's combinators algebra.
The advantage of the "self-referential" approach, with the (formal)
interview of the universal machine which introspects itself is that,
by the Solovay G/G* splitting, we get the difference between the true
(theological part) and the provable (the 'scientifically communicable'
A correct Löbian machine can study correctly (formally) the whole
theology (which extends the science here) of a simpler Löbian machine.
She cannot lift it correctly to herself, without falling in
inconsistencies, but she can lift it in the interrogative and informal
way, be it by hope, fear, bets, prayers or whatever. (or she can
accept some 'truth' as new axioms and transform herself, but that's
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
For more options, visit this group at