On 23 Jul 2011, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:26 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
Comp embraces the non computable. If you study the work you will
understand that both matter and mind arise from the non computable,
with comp.
See the second part of sane04. Ask question if there are problems.
I know you must have gone over it too many times already in other
places, so I'm not expecting you to reiterate comp for me, but I
haven't been able to see how comp embraces the non computable.
It embraces it at many places. First the first person indeterminacy
leads to the taking into account of uncomputable sequences in the
first person experiences. Just iterate the Washington-Moscow
experience n times. There will be 2^n resulting version of you, and
most will acknowledge the apparent non computability of their history
(like WWMMWWWWMWMMWMMMMWWW ...).
Secondly, at the modal first order level, none of the hypostases are
decidable. provable Bp is PI-2 complete, and true Bp is P1-complete in
the oracle of truth. This means "terribly non computable".
The theory of computability is full of result showing that the
behavior of machines is terribly NOT computable, and the machine's
theology is full of highly undecidable sentences. This should kill any
reductionist view of what numbers are capable of.
To me, any time you say that comp explains something or direct me to
your
work, it's the same as someone saying 'The Bible explains that'.
I have worked a lot to make all this available to any good willing
people. The first six step of UDA in the sane04 people can be
understood without reading any textbook. Step seven needs familiarity
with the Church-Turing thesis, or with a bit of computer programming.
The AUDA "interview of the UM" needs some familiarity with Gödel's
1931 paper.
It should be obvious that computationalism needs of a bit of computer
science.
Not
trying to disparage your way of teaching or motivating, just saying
that I can't seem to do anything with it.
You can remember the result, which is going in *you* direction (at
least UDA). We cannot have both comp and materialism. You keep
materialism, so you are coherent in abandoning comp. Unfortunately the
result is non intelligible, because you don't say explicitly what is
non Turing emulable in the human body.
To me, if it can't be made
understandable within the context of the discussion at hand, it's
better left to another discussion.
Just tell us what you don't understand.
I'm
just going by my observation that numbers are in many ways
everything
that feeling is not. To get to the feeling of numbers, you have to
look at something like numerology.
I doubt that very much. Lol.
All you need is computer science. Actually all you need is addition
and multiplication (and working a little bit, well, a lot probably).
What are your doubts based upon?
Numerology is poetry. It has nothing to tell on the consequences of
comp. To refer to numerology in that setting is like to ask an
astrologist for sending a rocket in space.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
