Hi John,
On 23 Jan 2011, at 18:20, John Mikes wrote:
Right on and Onward - Stephen,
that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed "inside" our
mind.
On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about 'wave as the
FORM of energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked many
physicists (and the best answer was: "Good question") WHAT IS THE
MARVEL YOU PEOPLE CALL - E N E R G Y ?
Moving (changing) cannot come from the 'inside (view?)' otherwise
why was 'it' in the position "to be moved/changed" FROM to begin with?
My point is only that IF we accept digital mechanism THEN the
*appearance* of movement is an inside, first person, construction, due
to the gap between what a machine (number) can prove and what is true.
If you believe that time is not a first person construction, then you
have to believe that DM (digital mechanism, comp) is false.
That is all what I say, together with the fact that it is far easier
to build a phenomenology of time and matter from number and
consciousness than the opposite (failure of aristotelian materialism).
The rest in math.
You insist a lot on human's limitations. You should appreciate that
with DM, I insist a lot on machine's limitation. The beautiful thing
is that Löbian machine (universal machine aware of their turing
universality) are aware of those limitations, and that those
limitation appears to have a creative role. The gap between their
beliefs and truth conducts and differentiates the consciousness flux,
in a way making the illusion of matter lawful. That's how God become
able to forget who he is and become able to say hello to itself, even
if sometimes he need an emailer ;)
In my (naive) worldview going one little step back from the Big
Bang(?) into a 'Plenitude' of everything in perfect (and unlimited)
symmetry with total interaction (postulating violations of itself -
as I tried to explain)
(Karl Jaspers Forum 2003 "Networks of Networks") where I tried to
approach the 'motive' as the trend to RETURN to the symmetry from
'complexities' (like the Big Crunch, Black holes, infinite
dissipation and similar daydreams). It may "DO" things assigned to
that so called 'energy'.
But this was also only MY daydream from WITHIN.
I tried to "trap" Bruno (whom I appreciate no end) into some idea
HOW numbers can do ANYTHING (e.g. GENERATE a change/movement) but in
vain.
The relation between numbers are very rich and complex, as number
theory illustrates. But the precise reason why we can say that,
relatively to each other, the numbers compute, is already in Gödel
fundamental 1931 paper. And in all good textbook on mathematical
logic. It is long and tedious to proof this well, but the ideas are
not so harder than the programming of any universal system in another.
If any computer access a computational state, such a fact is already a
theorem of (Robinson) arithmetic. Only states accessed by infinite,
non local, analog, garden of Eden type, of infinite machines are not
necessarily accessed by arithmetic 'even internally').
Remember that before Gödel we thought arithmetical truth to be
accessed by machine. After Gödel we know that machine access about
nothing, and can only scratch the surface. Arithmetic (unlike all
arithmetical theories and machines) *is* very big.
Assuming we are machine, Gödel's theorem applies to us, and explain
that we know about nothing about the capabilities of numbers and of
machine.
The inability of (some) human to listen to machine might be (some)
human limitation, perhaps. No?
If 'universal numbers' (new to me after my 'vacation') can indeed
compute, they need initiation to do so.
Universal number are just "universal machine", that is computer, in
the mathematical sense. Once you fix a theory, digital machine can be
identified with the number which describes the machine in the theory.
I have fixed the theory: it is Robinson Arithmetic, so I identify
machine and numbers. And so, I talk about universal numbers instead of
universal machine. It makes directly clear that e are talking about
something finitely describable. Universal number can be defined and
proved to exist in Robinson Arithmetic (which is just the definition
of the successor relation"+1", addition and multiplication). Universal
machine or numbers are finite thing, unlike Turing machine when taken
to much literally. A LISP interpreter is a finite program, and it
defines a universal number.
Our primitive embryonic computers have to be plugged into
electricity to work.
Our material (but not necessarily *primitively* material) computers
needs this. But if you believe in number theory, you can see that a
mathematical computer can mathematically compute without being
implemented in a physical reality. Physical reality appears as sum on
all those non material implementation in arithmetic by the UDA+MGA
argument. Matter has to be an indexical.
Have a nice day, John, I appreciate your concern and open mindness.
Please remind that I am not pretending anything about reality, just
that IF mechanism is TRUE, then Plato is closer to the truth than
Aristotle. But Mechanism might be wrong, sure. But this we don't know
yet, and if mechanism is true, we will remain forever undecided about
it. Mechanism is not believable by the first person. In a sense the
first person are NOT machine, from the first person point of view,
they are not even self-nameable. They are "meta-axiomatizable" at the
propositional level (S4Grz1), but not beyond (I think).
Mechanism is a belief in a form of reincarnation. It *is* a religion.
A such, and in practice it is more a question of right, than a
question of truth. It is both the right to say yes to the doctor, as
to say no.
Bruno
Otherwise they are expensive paperweights. What is a 'universal
number' plugged in
to do anything? or is it only OUR thinking to do 'numbery' functions?
Where do WE draw our mobility from? Not from explanation/definition
of how we act.
So - in spite of our agreement, dear Stephen, there MUST BE an
outside view - we just don't get it. We may get the result of it and
try to explain within our ignorance. In Colin's mini-solipsism.
Chaque-un a son gout.
Thanks for reflecting to my post and best wishes to all
John
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Hi John!
>
> "No outside view"!!!! That is the point that I was trying to
make from
> the start. This is why I keep repeating that Numerical Idealism is
an
> insufficient theory of everything; there cannot be an "outside"
that acts to
> distinguish numbers from each other! An interesting discussion of
this can
> be found here: http://kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/time_XIV.pdf
>
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Mikes
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:19 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011
>
> (Including Stephens initiation of course).
> After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to
> the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones.
> Maybe the words changed, references, too, conclusions are more
> sophisticated (?). SOME new members, as well
> (Please, give me credit for all those poisons the medics stuffed me
> withp impeding my brain and clarity of mind, if
> I ever had any such thing.
> What I see here is a Colin-position pointing to 'theoretical
> justification of the validity of math-statements' and Bruno's
position
> based
> on Bruno's position (comp included, valid, or not). Hard to argue
> because all the sophistication is based on the present status of our
> limited ignorance and unlimited explanatory breadth of Colin's
> mini-solipsism (i.e. the part of the world we so far got a glimpse
> of).
> Our sciences dwell within and reach out in their conclusions to
those
> unknowables we 'imagine' (calculate?) from that partial view of
the so
> far experienced (and explained by the limited ways). Such is our
> 'scientific' view and I think none of us can be exempt to that.
> We think what we think we know. We conclude within.
>
> By such limited tools humanity established an incredible technology
> and descriptions galore to explain it to ignorants within the
> ignorance. Physics, engineering, bio, psych, etc. etc. And a
> mathematics - so fundamental in Bruno's words(?) about numbers.
> What we see is a complex interlacing of not always discernible items
> allowing more to be involved.
> Upon such views humanity could not have established its 'scientific'
> (technological) results, but being anchored into it may interfere
> with further understanding of the unknown. Of course we cannot think
> beyond our mind-contents/function limited as it may be.
> (My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen).
>
> What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we
call a
> "universe" or "existence" is hazy. No outside view.
>
> With best wishes to 2011 and beyond
>
> John Mikes
>
> --
> 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.
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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
.
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.
