On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:07, Flammarion wrote:
> > > > >>> On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote: >> >>>>>> You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does >>>>>> not >>>>>> invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there? >> >>>>> "Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a >>>>> machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate >>>>> [the >>>>> pain I feel at space-time (x,t)] to a type or a sheaf of >>>>> computations >>>>> (existing forever in the arithmetical Platonia which is accepted >>>>> as >>>>> existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism). " >> >>>> This is in the eight step. >> >>>> I don't know which game you are playing, Peter, you never address >>>> the >>>> point. >> >>>> I have no clue what you mean by an immaterial UD, or actual >>>> existing >>>> numbers. >> >>> I mean exactly what you mean by "existing forever in the >>> arithmetical >>> Platonia which is accepted as >>> existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism" >> >> I mean that the truth status of statement having the shape ExP(x), >> with P written in first order arithmetic is true or false >> independently of me or of any consideration. > > But that doesn't mean the same thing at all. Assuming comp, this is necessarily enough. > Formalists > can accept such truths, they just don't think that truths > about what exists mathematically use a literal sense of > "truth". What is a 'literal' sense of truth? Also, what is primary matter and where does it comes from, and why does it organize into living being if it is propertyless? > >>>> I believe that to say yes to someone who will replace my brain by a >>>> digital machine, in this in the sense of believing that it is the >>>> computation that matter at some level, I have to trust a minimal >>>> amount of computer science. >> >>>> If you agree that the proof of the existence of two irrational >>>> numbers >>>> such that x^y is rational does provide information, then by MG >>>> Argument you may understand the point or find a flaw, fatal or not. >>>> Who knows? >> >>> How do you get from providing information to an immaterial UD? >> >> It is program without input which generates all the Pi, that is >> programs computing the phi_i, together with their arguments and >> dovetel on the execution of the computations. It is equivalent with >> the finite + infinite proof of the Sigma_1 sentences (those with the >> shape ExP(x) with P decidable). > > I don;t see what that has to do with information. Which information? The Shannon like information comes from the arithmetical truth, and the "meaning-consciousness information" comes from the fixed point of machine self-observability. 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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
