On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:55, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:

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.

You make me feel guilty. My defense is that science is not wishful thinking. The consolation is that comp might be wrong, but many of us will believe it true, and practically that's how we will expands ourselves in virtual realities spreading in the galaxy and beyond (in most futures). The real question is not do you accept an artificial brain, but do you accept that you daughter marry a man who has already accepted an artificial brain.

I can't change the taste of people. The same problem occurs with salvia divinorum. Some find the experience scary. Some find it just wonderful.

Perhaps humans want to be ignorant. Truth, and other possible truth, are scary. I think that in the long run the attitude consisting in hiding possible scary ideas is not winning. The longer a lie, or an error, is hidden, the biggest the shock when it is confronted with truth. I say often that Truth wins all the war, without any army. But to be franc, I am not entirely sure of that. Or it can take times. It is a paradox of democracy : people can vote for a dictator. It is the paradox of religion: people seems to accept the argument by authority. Humans follows leaders, like the wolves. They like to belong in club, the mood is not really for introspection, and still less for the obviously not so simple study of machine's introspection.

Often I hope myself to be wrong too, but then I hope someone shows me wrong. Young people understand the seven first steps without too much problem, and they see the problem (in big and robust universe). Step 8 is conceptually harder, and I am still trying to simplify it and make clearer the logical argument. I have already talked on this (cf the 323-principle).

And AUDA is simple in modal terms, but the precise justification of that use is a difficult theorem in logic (Solovay), which sums up (through two formal systems: G and G*) a long chains of key theorems in logic, beginning with Gödel. Logicians often talk in term of axiomatizable theories, but those can be shown essentially equivalent with the recursively enumerable sets (machines, intensional (relative) numbers).

Is it so enormous to say that comp needs computer science? Theoretical computer science is born in math, well before computers were build, (excepting some part of Babbage universal machine). They are many amazing results.


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

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

All consciousness is thus contain with Pi.

But then, Pi is just like any other transcendental number!

So all transcendental numbers contain all existence


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>

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>

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
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
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.


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

Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X.
Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large. Let's
N=10 and X = 55. The truth of this depends on the recursive definition
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
say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical truth.
chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all
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)=
+ C.  Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of
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

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.


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. 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:

  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.


There was a bug in that program, replace the last two "i"s with "j",
otherwise it breaks out of the loop too early.  :-)


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.

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 at

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to