On 23 Sep, 07:06, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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?
It only lacks essential properties. It can have any property as
an accident.
> >>>> 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.
The idea that mathematical theorems have shanning information
is contradicted by the idea that mathematical theorems are logically
necessarty
tautologies.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
