# Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

```is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self',
necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an
essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any
objective independent existence, or any determination as such..... and
is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and
predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore
proving the fact that "man is the measure of all things", and all
things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person
entities and nothing more except as projected by man.```
```
On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
> >> computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of
> >> mathematical
> >> propositions is as follows:
>
> >> Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an
> >> eternal
> >> objective truth.
>
> > Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure.
>
> But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any
> universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws
> cannot depend on the choice of the "universal base". Lat us continue
> with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > But isn't that true of nearly anything?  How many axiomatic systems
> > are there?
>
> >> Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X.
> >> Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large.
> >> Let's say
> >> N=10 and X = 55.  The truth of this depends on the recursive
> >> definition of
> >> the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior
> >> states, and is
> >> therefore a kind if computation.  Since N may be infinitely large,
> >> then in a
> >> sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever.  Likewise one
> >> might
> >> say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical
> >> truth.  For
> >> chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all
> >> programs
> >> must occur.
>
> >> Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity,
> >> consider the
> >> universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n
> >> +1)= Z(n)^2
> >> + C.  Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of
> >> structures
> >> such as our universe or the computation of your mind.
>
> > Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"?
> > If so, why?
>
> > Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just
> > a way of thinking about our experience?
>
> > Is it:
>
> > Recursive relations cause thought.
>
> > OR:
>
> > Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational
> > beliefs.
>
> I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming
> Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories,
> machines, entities, etc.
>
> Jason is right, computation occurs in "arithmetical platonia", even in
> a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is
> assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes it necessarily enough
> (by taking seriously the first and third person distinction).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> > The latter seems more plausible to me.
>
> > Rex
>
> > --
> > 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
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group
> > .
>
> 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