I like this group, the people are razor sharp in here.... Bruno is
too, nevertheless he gives me a headache.

even if he was right, I hope hes wrong.

On Jun 5, 11:19 pm, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone watched the movie "Contact", in which the structure of the
> universe was encoded in the transcendental number Pi? What if
> something like that is what is going on, and that's the answer to all
> paradoxes?
>
> So the physical universe beings with "Pi" encoded in the Big Bang,
> chaotically inflates, and eventually cools and contracts back to
> itself until it is again, exactly the mathematical description of
> "Pi".
>
> All consciousness is thus contain with Pi.
>
> But then, Pi is just like any other transcendental number!
>
> So all transcendental numbers contain all existence
>
> F.H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Hi Jason,
>
> >>     Very interesting reasoning!
>
> > Thank you.
>
> >> From: Jason Resch
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM
> >> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
>
> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com>
> >> 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.
>
> >> Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth,
> >> any fixed set of axioms can at best approximate mathematical truth.  If
> >> mathematical truth cannot be fully captured by a set of axioms, it must
> >> exist outside sets of axioms altogether.
>
> >> [SPK]
>
> >>     I see two possibilities. 1) Mathematical truth might only exist in our
> >> minds. But an infinity of such minds is possible...2) Might it be possible
> >> that our mathematical ideas are still too primitive and simplistic to 
> >> define
> >> the kind of set that is necessary?
> >> **
>
> > 1) More is answered by:
> > A: "Math -> Matter -> Minds" (or as Bruno suggests "Math -> Minds ->
> > Matter") than by
> > B: "Matter -> Minds -> Math", or
> > C: "Minds -> (Matter, Math)".
> > Compared to "B", "A" explains the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the
> > natural sciences, the apparent fine tuning of the universe (with the
> > Anthropic Principle), and with computationalism explains QM.
> > "C" has the least explanatory power, and we must wonder why the experience
> > contained within our minds seems to follow a compressible set of physical
> > laws, and why mathematical objects seem to posses objective properties but
> > by definition lack reality.
> > Those who say other universes do not exist are only adding baseless entities
> > to their theory, to define away that which is not observed.  It was what led
> > to theories such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulated collapse
> > as a random selection of one possible outcome to be made real and cause the
> > rest to disappear.  Similarly, there are string theorists which hope to find
> > some mathematical reason why other possible solutions to string theory are
> > inconsistent, and the one corresponding to the the standard model is the
> > only one that exists.  Why?  They think this is necessary to make their
> > theory agree with observation, but when the very thing is unobservable
> > according to the theory it is completely unnecessary.
> > The situation is reminiscent of DeWitt and Everett:
>
> >> In his letter, DeWitt had claimed that he could not feel himself split,
> >> so, as mathematically attractive as Everett's theory was, he said, it could
> >> not be true. Everett replied in his letter to DeWitt that, hundreds of 
> >> years
> >> ago, after Copernicus had made his radical assertion that the Earth 
> >> revolved
> >> around the sun instead of the reverse, his critics had complained that they
> >> could not feel the Earth move, so how could it be true? Recalling Everett's
> >> response to him decades later, in which he pointed out how Newtonian 
> >> physics
> >> revealed why we don't feel the Earth move, DeWitt wrote, "All I could say
> >> was touché!"
>
> > 2) I don't know.  Godel proved that any sufficiently complex axiomatic
> > system can prove that there are things that are true which it cannot prove.
> >  Only more powerful systems can prove the things which are not provable in
> > those other axiomatic systems, but this creates an infinite hierarchy.
> >  Whether or not there is some ultimate top to it I don't know.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> The fractal is just an example of a simple formula leading to very complex
> >> 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.
>
> >>> Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"?
> >>> If so, why?
>
> >> I don't know what lower bound of information or complexity is required for
> >> minds.
>
> >> [SPK]
> >>     Why are we sure that a “lower bound of information” or “complexity” is
> >> required? Seriously, there seems to be a bit of speculation from too few
> >> facts when it comes to consciousness!
> >> **
>
> > I should clarify, I don't know what the lower bound is or if there is one.
> > That said I do believe information and computation are importantly related
> > to consciousness.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >>> The latter seems more plausible to me.
>
> >> Through recursion one can implement any form of computation. Recursion is
> >> common and easy to show in different mathematical formulas, while showing a
> >> Turing machine is more difficult.  Many programs which can be easily 
> >> defined
> >> through recursion can also be implemented without recursion, so I was not
> >> implying recursion is necessary for minds.  For example, implementing the
> >> Fibonacci formula iteratively would look like:
>
> >> Fib(N)
> >>   X = 1
> >>   Y = 1
> >>   for int i = 2 to N:
> >>     i = X + Y
> >>     X = Y
> >>     Y = i
> >>   print Y
>
> >> This program iteratively computes successive Fibonacci numbers, and will
> >> output the Nth Fibbonaci number.
>
> >> Jason
>
> > There was a bug in that program, replace the last two "i"s with "j",
> > otherwise it breaks out of the loop too early.  :-)
>
> >> --
>
> >> [SPK]
> >>     The existence of such Numbers could be a telltale sign that numbers
> >> require an eternal computation to define them.
>
> > I'm not sure, I can define Pi without an infinite description or
> > computation.  Pi = circumference of a unit circle / 2
> > I would agree that determining Pi from that definition probably does require
> > an eternal/infinite amount of computation though.
> >  Jason
>
> > --
> > 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.

Reply via email to