On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote:

indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization...

But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more deeply a universal-machinization.





but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended... not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory.... but are you asserting that beings in themselves in the abstract and theological sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form?

I start from the fact that humans and machines can agree on simple assertion about them. A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition.

To be clear and avoid misunderstanding, I am not doing philosophy. I do cognitive science/theoretical physics, or theology in the prechristian sense.

My starting hypothesis is that my brain (or my generalized brain) is a finite things which can be substituted by a digital machine. I don't know if that is true or not. I just derive the consequences.

Bruno




On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self',
necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view...

There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious. Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I think some progress have perhaps been done.






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",

IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of all things. They create the coupling consciousness/ realties. It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well to define physical realities.








and all
things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person
entities and nothing more except as projected by man.

Why "by man"? Is that not an anthropomorphism?

Bruno




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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group 
athttp://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 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 .


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 .



--
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 .

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.

Reply via email to