On 05 Jan 2010, at 21:18, Nick Prince wrote:
It feels a bit lie a chicken and egg situation - do we pick out the
laws or do they pick us?. But I am still working my way through this
and and loads of other stuff, so I don't understand it yet.
The computable laws (definable in elementary arithmetic) pick "us",
and "we" pick the physical law.
"Number => consciousness => matter."
But this makes sense only if you mean by "us", "us, the universal
machines".
It is pretty ridiculous, if you meant it by "us" the "humans".
It is tricky to understand. Comp *is* counterintuitive. It is related
to a gap between the fist and third person point of view, which came
from the gap between 'true' and 'provable', (and 'true and provable',
etc.).
The possibility of this "reversal" comes from "programming", or "Gödel
numbering". It comes from the fact that a part of the mathematical
reasoning can be translated into arithmetic, and so does the
computations.
Auda comes from the fact, already well seen by Gödel in 1931, that
machines, or axiomatizable set of beliefs (theorie), can prove their
own Gödel's incompleteness result (the so called "formalized" second
incompleteness theorem). (~Bf -> ~B ~Bf).
Good book: Boolos 1979. (assume Mendelson's book or alike). No need
for uda, although it helps to "de-trivialize" uda, it makes the mind
body problem a problem in pure math/computer science.
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.
