On 04 Jun 2011, at 20:03, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch
One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of
propositions is as follows:
Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an
Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure.
Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical
fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth. If
mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it
exist outside sets of axioms altogether.
Then perhaps the correct conclusion to draw is that there is no such
thing as "mathematical truth"?
No theories nor machine can reach all arithmetical truth, but few
people doubt that closed arithmetical propositions are either true or
false. We do share a common intuition on the nature of arithmetical
I have doubt on any notion of global mathematical truth. Sets, real
numbers, complex numbers, etc. are simplifications of the natural
numbers. They are convenient fictions, I think. If we are machine, it
is undecidable if ontology is more than N.
Perhaps there is just human belief.
Jason said it. If you follow that slope you may as well say that there
is only belief by Rex. You can also decide that there is nothing to
explain, no theories to find, and go walking in the woods. Science, by
definition, assumes something beyond (human) belief.
The fractal is just an example of a simple formula leading to very
output. The same is true for the UDA:
for i = 0 to inf:
for each j in set of programs:
execute single instruction of program j
add i to set of programs
That simple formula executes all programs.
Following those instructions will let someone "execute" all
Or, alternatively, configuring a physical system in a way that
represents those instructions will allow someone to interpret the
system's subsequent states as being analogous to the "execution" of
Do you need someone observing your brain for you to feel something?
Why would the physical UD execution differ?
Indeed, why would the arithmetical UD execution differ?
Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of
If so, why?
I don't know what lower bound of information or complexity is
Then why do you believe that information of complexity is required
If you accept that the brain is Turing emulable, then it is easy to
explain that matter/consciousness is arithmetical information as seen
from inside. That is certainly easier than explaining consciousness by
Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are
a way of thinking about our experience?
Recursive relations cause thought.
Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational
The latter seems more plausible to me.
Through recursion one can implement any form of computation.
But, ultimately, what is computation?
Any mathematical transformation which is Turing emulable.
Assuming Church thesis this is a very general definition.
common and easy to show in different mathematical formulas, while
Turing machine is more difficult. Many programs which can be
through recursion can also be implemented without recursion, so I
implying recursion is necessary for minds.
Then what do you believe is necessary for minds?
A universal system, or universal numbers. Now they can be proved to
exist from logic + non negative integers, so we don't need a lot.
Jason answered "An informational process". That's OK, especially in
his context (that computation exist in math), but the word "process"
is frequently interpreted by "primitively spatio-temporal process",
when we need only (sigma_1) arithmetical relations.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at