I hope you don't mind I answer in one post.
On 05 Jul 2011, at 21:18, B Soroud wrote:
Bruno, I am not sympathizing with the Neo-Platonist dogmatists.
I am not sympathizing with any dogmatists.
lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.
I have to say that I appreciate a lot Jason Resch comment. It is not
such much a belief than a definition. If reality = a physical
universe, let it be. My point is that if we assume mechanism, then
there are reason to think that physical reality emerges from something
else (basically from addition and multiplication, although it can be
described also in term of abstraction and application of combinators
or lamdda terms).
You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial experience
for some independently existing and non-experiential matrix?
I want nothing. I am just pointing on the fact that mechanism is not
compatible with materialism, and I suggest or illustrate that we can
remain cold on those questions, and improve the clarity so that the
question mechanism versus materialism leads to testable empiric
lol, I like this. Yes, it is my moral perogative to doubt reality-
view (in the abstract sense)
OK. At least it looks like we share some anti-dogmatism.
So you mean I'm stuck in Brunoland forever?
No. I mean that if comp is correct then you are stuck in
"consciousness" for ever, but it might be hard to interpret dues to th
fact that we can survive amnesia, and that the word "you" is hard to
define. I can explain why you have to make a risky bet to accept a
finite circumscription of your 3-you, and I can explain why your 1-you
escape all theories, and is not even nameable (always assuming comp,
and sometimes assuming the classical theory of knowledge (by
Honestly... I have never read your work... it is over my head and I
reject it in principle... because it goes 100% counter to my
intuition and good sense (in so far as I understand it from the
things you seem to say)
I appreciate your frankness. I agree that comp is counterinituive, but
not much more than Quantum Mechanics, and I would say, science in
general. We all see clearly that the sun moves around us, don't we?
If it didn't sound so outright ridiculous.... I might go deeper into
It is a reasoning. It is then followed by an arithmetization of the
reasoning which translate the problem in a mathematical/physical
I don't see why you feel it as outright ridiculous. I am not putting
in doubt anything believed, just showing that with the comp assumption
things might be deeper than what we remind of Aristotle. The discovery
of the universal machine, by Post, Turing, Church, etc. shed a lot of
light on the mind body problem, if only to explain it, and to show
that it is not yet solved.
There is not much radical independent thinking.... there is no
aristotle or descarte or kant in Buddhism.....
There is an interesting book by Tchebarski (I will search for the
references later) on buddhist logic, and they are many quite good
argumentators. Most tradition allows comment, and accept critics on
comment, and discussion, and most assertion admits different
interpretation in many different school. Now, you are right: some
tradition develop clerical habits, and some period can see the
religion used to manipulate gullible people. But that happens
everywhere, even in academies.
"If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human
thought, show us the dependence."
We must be confused, or I must be confused.... because you are way
to clever to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to
me.... so there must be some kind of confusion....
because I would respond to this by saying: the dependence is, if
there was no human thought, there would be no such statement.
And you are right. But I was not talking on the statement itself, but
on the meaning of the statement. Without humans, no human will state
"galaxies have many stars", but the galaxies does not need the humans
to have many stars. Likewise, the truth (not its human expression) of
Ex(x=x) might not depend on the humans. I have evidence that the moon
was the moon before life appeared on the planet, and I have evidence
that 17 was already prime a long time before the first human realized
it is the case that 17 is prime. To be sure "17 is prime" is not even
in category of what can evolve in time.
lol, Bruno, lets not argue... we will eternally disagree.
The fun is when we disagree. Nothing is more boring than a
conversation between people who agree. If we disagree eternally, we
will have fun eternally. Cool :)
Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we
experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-
experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience
and accounts for the primary reality of the world?
Yes. The non-experimental truth is the ability to make sense of
addition and multiplication.
With (N,+,*) you can prove the existence of universal numbers, and
you, like any universal number, can prove that they cannot stop on the
question where does the number come from? That mystery will remain.
How can we have a truth about a reality we can't relate to.... and
how can there be a reality that is "higher" or more fundamental then
us but not more conscious and intelligent and powerful then us?
We cannot have a truth about a reality we can't relate to. But we can
relate to realities that we feel non temporal. This happens when we
listen to music, do love, do drugs, and, formidably, when we do
mathematics. Sometimes we can feel that eternity in anything, even
driving a car, or paying taxes (!). But the study of math is the
simplest way to develop some acquaintances with the realm of the
independent truth. Since Gödel, we know that simple truth really hide
an unimaginable amount of complexity. An object like the Mandelbrot
illustrates that too, and the notion of computer per se can help to
understand where the complexity come from: they do some mess in
Platonia, a mess which was unexpected by them, although intuited (see
the chapter on Numbers by Plotinus, for example). At least we comp we
can explain ho we related to them, because our bodies and mind result
from an infinite competition among them. The higher reality is both
simpler than us, and more complex than us. It is amazing, but
explainable by the distinction between the points of view, and those
distinction are not human made, they are universal machine made. This
extends Everett relativity to arithmetic. There is no much choice in
the matter, beside abandoning comp for taste prejudice.
We are god, and outside the normal physical world of interacting
relations... there is no truth or being. All metaphysics is
fiction.... Human-created.... for there is no other being! We are
the highest! We are making everything up!
That is, I'm afraid, the big problem with (some) humans. They feel
You can say "I am God", you can say "we are God", but not in any sense
preventing anyone to be God. You just don't know, especially as a
If human continue to feel superior, God might invest on a more humble
You will never find a reality apart from the so called phenomenal
world.... which you can either directly experience and study and
appreciate and enjoy.... or you can live in your own abstract
conceptual understanding of the world...
We can propose theory, and test them. Computationalism does not
discard the relation between reality and the phenomenal world.
Only, the phenomenal world is not all what is.
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter....
Not at all. I assume digital mechanism, then I explain why
consciousness preceded matter, in some sense. Human consciousness (or
human unconsciousness) follows matter.
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter.... i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
not conscious..... and intellect and understanding in any real sense
are found in even later stage terrestrial forms, and we have physical
explanations for this.......
For a reason similar to the reason that artificial intelligence build
competent intellectual machine, playing chess, before succeeding in
machine's walking. From inside we confuse temporal evolution and the
logical deduction. That is why I do follow Pratt, and King, on the
dualism between set (3-person in Pratt) and boolean Algebra. It is
already a sort of points of view distinction in math (mathematically
hard, or not, to directly apply in the comp frame, for technical
I think that stable measure makes us very rare in reality branches,
and the branches being very numerous, in at least an intuitive
rendering of the measure problem. But that is a good and important
question which we have to work on.
Bruno sins against naturalism and all that we know and intuit.
I love you Pseudonymous. You confirm so well my feeling that
materialists are religious about this. So I sin? So just proposing a
theory is a sin?
That's an idolatry of nature. I do give her just a more solid base:
the natural numbers. Pun included.
He will do anything to resurrect from the dead some rudimentary and
I "resurrect" it from what any universal computer (including you) can
discover by looking inward, and staying enough self-referentially
correct. In a sense, all what I say is that we can already listen to
Soroud, I appreciate your skepticism. And I see you are aware of the
mind-body problem, which is crucial. UDA does not need much knowledge
in math or computer science, and the first seven steps are easy, and
give the main picture. The step 8 is more difficult, and I admit that
some effort should be done, and we can come back on this in the list
(cf the 323 principle which I hesitate to put or not in the comp
hyp.). UDA can give some metaphysical vertigo, but that is a bit the
goal. It is a bit like the effect of drug, and there too, some
headache can happen.
The point is not to propose a new system, just to show the difficulty
we get when keeping two systems in place (mechanism and weak
materialism). Then I keep mechanism, for the sake of the reflection,
and I look on the origin of physics "in the head" of the universal
machine (the key computer science object), as the thought experiences/
experiment (the 1 and 3 views) suggests. Of course this second part is
more demanding for the effort in math. Yet the reversal itself is not
so much difficult to grasp, and nobody ask you to believe the
conclusion, just to see that they follow from the assumptions.
You seem to agree that we are ignorant. A good understanding of comp
can help to realize that we are even much more ignorant than we could
have conceived before the discovery of the universal machine. Despite
universal machines have recently multiplied (the home computer, the
nth generation of mobile-phone, etc.), most people does not seem to
really grasp the notion of universal machine and universal numbers.
For UDA, you need only to understand that we can program one computer
to start an infinite computation zig-zagging on *all* computations,
and this in a super-redundant way.
You might take a look to zooms on the Mandelbrot set. Here too, a very
simple relation z_n+1 := z_n^2 + 1, in the "complex number" leads to a
super-fractal, which is not just similar, but more and intricate and
I have read the post where you complain about math as a plague (My
theory here is that you confuse math and some math teacher(s)). Am I
Take a look at a non deep zoom, very pedagogical, like
The Mandelbrot set border is a curve, delineating a connected part of
the plane. But that curve is terribly intricate, and is made of tinier
version of the Mandelbrot set. Between any mini-mandelbrot set, there
is an infinity of mini-mandelbrot sets. Actually the Mandelbrot set
surrounds itself by an infinity of minibrots (as they are often named)
which organized themselves so as to mimick their neighborhood 2, 4, 8,
16, ... 2^n, ... times, making the 2^n rings of neighborhood denser
and denser on the smaller and smaller minibrots. This is well
The platonia, today, is not simply containing triangles and circles,
and regular solids, it contains also the Mandelbrot set, which
illustrates many feature of nature (mandelbrot was found of clouds!).
The Mandelbrot set illustrates the complexity of the relation between
numbers. It might even be equivalent to it, in which case it would be
a compact view of a universal dovetailing.
You don't need to be a mathematician to enter in the academia, Soroud,
but you will become a mathematician if you enter.
And if comp is correct, you already entered, so strictly speaking we
have just to remind you of some things and different things.
You might read the novel By Daniel Galouye "SIMULACRON III". The hero
didn't get the logical point, but the heroine did.
Ah! but the only problem is that when we finish a post, you have
already sent many others. I will answer here. It looks we do agree on
I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO
I agree totally. And with the discovery of the universal machine we
have good reason to make vastly bigger our ignorance. And assuming
comp, we have an explanation of why that ignorance is big, but also,
how knowledge somehow can only make it bigger.
[Oops, a difficult post that I pass.] *see below*
it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo-
Platonism or Kaballah or whatever.... they are all ultimately
satisfactory and incoherent.
You cannot be that quick. People reason or try to reason on deep
questions on which other people have thought about, and this in human
context where you can have trouble when you forget the human law "the
boss is always right".
To be frank, you look a little bit like you forget that WE KNOW NEXT
TO NOTHING. If you agree you know next to nothing, how can you be so
quick in evaluating the works of the others, especially in a complex
if not taboo fields?
So there is no superstructure that is satisfactory and coherent and
that really really makes sense and makes sense of things that any
science can support or subsume.
Comp entails that what you say is true about arithmetic when seen from
inside. It looks like a reductionism, but it is an antireductionnism,
even on just the numbers, relatively to each other. We are not
"stupid" machines. It is the machines which are not "stupid".
I know it was hard to accept the monkey is our cousin, and I am
patient with those who take times to recognize themselves in number
relations (especially that this is impossible, in the 1-way, when
necessary in the 3-way like with comp).
We are lost in the land of paradoxes, mysteries, antinomies, neither/
nor's and absurdities.
The strategy consists to confront the universal machine with them.
Paradoxes resolve into infinities, loops, insolubilities and
incompleteness, games, conflicts, etc. That is theoretical computer
Theology is, somehow, theoretical computer science minus computer's
theoretical computer science.
Universal machine ignorance obeys laws.
I come back to the post I passed:
Bruno, is it possible that there is no "fundamental reality" or
"primary reality"... and even if there was, and it was non-
observational or non-experiential.... why would it matter to us?
Whatever is the fundamental reality, you are related to it.
Fundamental reality might be different from what we observe, measure,
etc. But it needs observable feature to be a reality, at least a human
reality. It certainly matter, like it could matter the day your
daughter tell you that your step son has an artificial brain. Given
the exponential and superexponential growing complexity of the
relation between numbers on this planet (made possible by DNA, then
brain, then computers, etc.) it might matter more and more.
It seems to me that reality or knowledge always implies a blind
dualism that reflects the way in which "we" ("I") experience phenomena
(subject/object, knower/known distinction-absurdity)
There is such a dualism. Self-duplication thought experiments
exemplifies it. In the math, the distinction between the false and a
proof of the false, is made necessary in the classical theory of
If reality is the Other and we are derived from the Other and this
Other is transcendent or "fundamental".... then what of this "Other"
and what is its relation to us, or what is our relation to it.... does
it have any subjectivity and do we have any ultimicity in relation to
Comp answers this somehow, but it is better to understand by oneself,
starting from the assumptions. To answer this bluntly will make you
say something like "I don't like that", and forget about it. The more
correct we are on our probable universal environment, the more we get
free of it, and free to explore many dimensions of reality.
It seems like any reality is assumed to not be us and we are assumed
to be related to it... therefore it is separate and either conceived
of as blind and inferior to us, our super conscious and superior to
and why are we seemingly superior to this other...
And are we?
Unless you assume we are the One.... then I would tell you that the
One is absurd.
It might depend on which One.
Ah gosh, still a mail. I will only answer this:
I don't think Bruno has really articulated to us his theology... I
don't think he has any real system.
I did. See my paper on Plotinus. It is certainly a toy theology, but
as far as I know, and as far as we are correct (close to God-Truth) it
applies to us, and it makes at the least of proof of consistency of
Plotinus with respect to arithmetic. You just show up prejudices. the
work is done, which sometimes embarrassed me a little bit. The
weakness is that it leads to complex open question in mathematical
logic. But then it should be obvious that the universal machine
theology might be not so trivial.
You say that you know nothing, why don't you do a bit of research and
I feel a sincere and genuine questioning, followed by a refusal to dig
the questioning in the theoretical frame. Which I can understand given
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