On 11 Mar 2011, at 03:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:

## Advertising

From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:48 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Movie cannot think Dear Stephen, On 10 Mar 2011, at 16:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Movie cannot think On 10 Mar 2011, at 13:47, Andrew Soltau wrote: > All the moments exist, and as Deutsch points out, as you summarise, > 'The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that > there are different frames that have an implicit sequence and in > which the observers state is different', but for change to actually > happen, the magic finger must move. Otherwise reality would be like > a movie film sitting in the can in storage. The change in the "working program" is brought by the "universal machine" which interprets it. All you need is an initial universal "machine". It happens that addition and multiplication, with first order logic is enough to define such an initial universal system, andthe UDA+MGA shows that the laws of mind, including the laws ofmatter,does not depend on the choice of the initial universal system. So elementary arithmetic does emulate, in the mathematical sense, computations. Arithmetic does not just describe all those computations: it literally emulate them. This is not trivial to show, although computer science gives the insight. Computations in arithmetic are not like movie, they are like a observer line universe in a block universe.To add an external time reintroduces a mystery where it is notneeded.That use of time is like the use of "God" as gap explanation by the pseudo-religious (authoritative) people. You will end up with a primitive time, a primitive matter, and why not a primitive "god" responsible for all this.That is, in my opinion, the correct insight of Deutsch. Except thathementions an "implicit sequence", which is typically made explicit by the universal machine which emulates, albeit statically or arithmetically-realistically, the computation. All computations in that setting are ultimately based on the explicit sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... (or the equivalent in the combinators, etc.). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ** Dear Bruno,I only really have one difficulty with this thought: Whatchoose that particular "initial universal 'machine'"?[BM] Addition+multiplication? (RA, Robinson Arithmetic)Because it is shown that it is enough to derive mind and matter fromit.Because it is shown that, if we accept the comp bet, it *has to* beenough. And adding anything more betrays the solution of the 1-3person relations.Because it is taught in high school, and with few exception acceptedand used by everybody.Because it can be shown to be necessary, in the sense that anyweaker theory cannot derive it.***[SPK] But how does this address my question? I must havemisunderstood you but the word “initial” appears three times in thefollowing:“The change in the "working program" is brought by the "universal machine" which interprets it. All you need is an initial universal "machine". It happens that addition and multiplication, with first order logic is enough to define such an initial universal system, and the UDA+MGA shows that the laws of mind, including the laws of matter, does not depend on the choice of the initial universal system.”Why does the word “initial” appear here, if there is no sense of asequence of machine of which there is a least machine? So you aresaying that the fact that a “weaker theory” cannot derive itdetermines its minimality in the sequence?

`Words have to be interpreted in their context. here by initial`

`universal machine I was just meaning that I need to postulate the`

`existence of at least one universal system, or a theory having the`

`sigma_1 completeness property. And elementary arithmetic is enough.`

Why is it necessary to assume a form of the well founded axiom?

Because the phenomenology of non well foundedness is simple to derive.

It appears to me that you are otherwise there would not necessarilybe a minimal machine!

`Things like that can be true from some person perspective. So we don't`

`have to assume it, because we can explain it with less assumption.`

Even then we have no phenomenological interview of the sodefined Löbian Machine to at least give us the appearance that wehave found a derivation of mind and matter that can be analyticallycontinued to any person’s experience of what it is like to have amind in a physical world! I concede that within your argument thereis something that seems to be like a mind in an abstract 3-p sense,but you have not shown how such a “mind” interacts with othersimilarly defined minds except in a reasoning that involves takingthe plural case, but mere plurality is not sufficient for yield ageneral result for concurrency.***If it cannot be shown to be unique in contrast to all possiblemachines, what makes it special?[BM]I insist that any first order logical specification of a universalsystem will do. I have tried to introduce the combinators instead ofnumbers, but people were a bit uneasy with it, so I take thenumbers, which are equivalent with respect to our goal.What makes it special is Church thesis, in the comp motivation. Theclosure of the set of partial computable function for thediagonalization procedure.**[SPK] OK, but again, I have tried to explain that the Church thesisis not above suspicion as a back-door way of injecting theproperties of physicality into your result in my discussion of theMaudlin paper. I even sketched how the Yes Doctor fully assumesphysical properties in that there has to be a prior measure ofpersistence of state to define a substitution level, did you not seethis?

`I refuted this. And 'yes doctor' is not Church thesis. Indeed comp is`

`'yes doctor' + Church thesis. You might (re)study sane04.`

I can easily be dismissed as lacking the sophisticated wording thatyou have acquired, but is that not just ab hominem? I do not wish torubbish your argument or your result, I want to be sure that youunderstand that there seem to be holes in its logical reasoning,gaps which allow tacit assumptions and pre-analytic thoughts to slipinto the reasoning such that it seems that one has obtained a model,but one that only obtains if we all ignore certain features anddifficulties.

`My goal is to make clear what those problems are, and to formulate`

`them mathematically. This is made possible by the comp hypothesis.`

**We may be blinded by the sophistication and brilliance of ourlogics but can we really be sure that there is not a deeper levelat which this Löbian machine is just another in a vast infinitude?[BM]RA is not Löbian. RA is the TOE. RA is equivalent with the UD, andit generates the histories which contains the much more complexLöbian machines. I interview the Löbian machine because they havethe maximal introspective power possible.RA is the TOE, the Löbian machine are the internal observer. Theyare much clever than RA. I think as clever as you and me.Also, in science, we are NEVER sure. Comp might be false.[SPK] RA is a belief that may not be justified. It cannot beconsidered to be a Theory of Everything if it excludes some aspectof existence that is necessary for its specification!

`Assuming comp, RA is enough, almost by connstruction. You are just`

`arguing implicitly against comp, and as far I know you might be right.`

Is Robinson Arithmetic Gödel Complete for any expression that can bederived and coded by any number or is it only complete with in theclass of statements that it can make?

`It is sigma_1 complete, and thus Turing universal. But it is not`

`Löbian, and thus cannot prove its own sigma_1 completeness.`

`Both RA and PA are incomplete, like all theories capable of adding and`

`multiplying.`

It obviously is not complete in a non-Gödel sense since we need theLöbian Machine to examine RA so in a sense the Löbian machine is“outside” of RA.

`No it is "in". You are doing the "Searle's error". RA emulates all`

`Löbian machine. But RA don't have to believe (prove) what the ¨Lobian"`

`machines talk about.`

`You can imagine that RA is like the SWE. And PA is a physicist`

`(supposed to obey the SWE).`

How is this separation possible if RA is the minimal initial system?A minimal initial system would have to be RA + some extra structuresand relations such that a Löbian machine can be specified co-existing with the RA,

No RA proves their existence and emulates their computations.

but even then this fails because we need the assumption of eternallyexisting (thus causeless) numbers or combinators or equivalent toact as a support for RA and the extra structure and relations.

You need to accept the truth of the elementary arithmetical axioms.

Please stop stating that “I interview the Löbian machine...”when you obviously do not. The word “interview” requires theassumption that you as an entity that appears to have a physicalmanifestation to many other 'observers’ is interacting somehow withan abstract entity that has no physical form. How can we distinguishthis verbiage from that of the person that claims to “channel alienintelligences”? It is unseemly!

`See my annexe in "conscience et mécanisme" where I provide theorem`

`prover for the arithmetical hypostases. It is an interview, in the`

`sense that you can build a machine, ask questions, get the answers,`

`etc. But the interviex is done mathematically since Gödel's 1931.`

Consider G. Chiatin's Omega! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constantOK.I question the entire premise of a "special initialconditions"! Why must we believe that there really is a singularitythat 'causes' it at all?[BM] What initial conditions?I think you are confusing "initial condition" and the theory wemight choose.***[SPK] I did not use the word “initial" first but I did try to reasonthat to state that“It happens that addition and multiplication, with first order logic is enough to define such an initial universal system, and the UDA+MGA shows that the laws of mind, including the laws of matter, does not depend on the choice of the initial universal system.”implies something like special initial conditions because such aclaim is equivalent to saying that the prior existence of RA

`There is not really prior existence of RA, nor is there prior`

`existence of QM. There is atemporal existence of numbers, in the snese`

`that truth like "24 is not prime" are beyond time and space`

`(Arithmetical realism). But then RA reappears as a special universal`

`number *in* RA. (Introducing already a weak form of non well`

`foundedness, BTW).`

and first order logic is the uncaused cause of our common reality!How is this different in kind from the argument of ab initiocondidit de nihilo in theologies??

`Because I assume the elementary arithmetical truth to be independent`

`of me, and of time. If you think that "24 is not prime" depends on`

`something, you have to elaborate on that dependence, and to make clear`

`what are your assumptions.`

*** [BM]I give a theory, quite simple and already known by everybody. And Iprovide its internal intensional epistemologies/theologies, in themost classical way (Aristotle's logic, Plato Tarski's semantic,George Boole's law of thought, Gödel, Löb, ... Solovay, or simplerGeorge Boolos' laws of mind, Plotinus' theology... and Pythagorus'ontology).Church Post Kleene Turing Markov thesis resurrects Pythagorus'ontology, with someone no one expected: the universal machine.That's a recurring creative bomb on this planet and it is a typicalevent in the modern (post Gödel) arithmetical Platonia as seen byits inhabitant.In UDA i provide a formulation of the mind body problem in the compframe, understandable by good willing humans.In AUDA i show we can already ask the question to the universalnumbers, and get some answers, and some silence too.Why must we recycle that old theological idea? Are there no viablealternatives?Yes. Just say say "no" to the digital mechanist surgeon, and thisfor all levels. You are free to study those alternatives. G and G*will still apply on a large initial segment of the classical theoryof self-reference, though.I am a modest scientist (and this should be an oxymoron). I mean that I have no clue of the truth. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/[SPK] I know you better than this Bruno! You are humble but stillwilling to bet that you are correct.

That is a private question which concerns only me and my doctor.

I admire that, I just want to see that your estimation of the oddsare correct.

`Even if comp is not correct, it remains intersting to compare the`

`physics of the machine and the physics inferred by observations.`

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 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.