On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:07, Flammarion wrote:

>>> On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to