On 31 Jul 2011, at 16:14, benjayk wrote:

## Advertising

Bruno Marchal wrote:On 24 Jul 2011, at 22:08, benjayk wrote:OK. Remember the goal, to find the, or a, TOE.What I suggest, at least, is that with comp, any first orderlogicalspecification of any universal machine, will do.Well, okay. I just get the feeling that a TOE doesn't really exist. You "just" have a theory that manages to state this very clearly, and logically.You might try to take literally what I say. I was saying that each universal numbers (like FORTRAN, Conway's game of life, LISP, prolog, Robinson arithmetic, etc.) are TOE. To fix the things I have chosen Robinson Arithmetic.The theory of everything is basically a bit of classical logic andtheaxioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Another one is mainly Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) That gives rich ontologies in which internal observers "project realities". With comp we have to embed the mathematician (the little ego!) in arithmetics, and the laws of mind and matter does not depend on the choice of the first initial universal system. All computations contains all computations by all universal systems,that is why the tehological matter (including physics) does notdependon the initial choice. It does not mean that there is no TOE. Only a lot, which are equivalent for the fundamental matter. They lead all to the same hypostases, once you accept the classical theory of knowledge (Theaetetus).We can debate the terms.

OK.

I think calling universal systems a TOE is a bit of a stretch.

`Just to be precise, the TOE is not the universal system, but some`

`first order classical logic, with equality, extension of the chosen`

`universal system. OK. (the UMs and the LUMs are more like hero and`

`heroin in the dramas the TOE allows)`

The notion of a TOE usually is used in a reductionist sense, as a theory that can be used to predict everything.

A TOE should do that, in principle at least.

`Of course it should be able to predict everything which is`

`predictible, in the right condition. No one asks for a TOE which can`

`predict things which are not predictible. No TOE can predict that you`

`will feel to be, just after the duplication, in W or in M.`

I don't think this can be done through universal systems. It appears to me COMP allows for uncomputable, and therefore unpredictable phenomena.

A lot. All surprises hide surprises.

I am critical of the very notion of a TOE. It doesn't make muchsense. Evencurrent physics clearly shows that results of experiments can't bepredictedprecisely. So is the TOE supposed to give a perfect probability distribution? But what is this even supposed to mean?

`The exact contrary. Comp is not just a change in`

`'perspective' (Aristotle -> Plato), but the discovery of a creative`

`bomb (the UM).`

`With comp we begin to know that we don't know what we are doing. We`

`can (machines can) understand that by trying to control it, we make it`

`less controllable. A bit like a mother with a baby. That is not`

`something entirely new, but here it appears in the 3-theories.`

COMP shows, as you said, that there are unbridgeable gaps, whichreallymeans there is something left unexplained, and unexplainable.

`Absolutely so (assuming comp). comp = CT + "yes doctor". CT subsumes`

`arithmetic.`

So no theorycan explain everything. But we can show the necessity of there beinga gap.

`OK. You are right. I will abandon the label TOE, for TOAE. Theory of`

`almost everything.`

`But, you know, it is more than the necessity for a gap, it is the`

`discovery that the gap 'kick back', it has a geometry, it is`

`"something" and machines have access to it, they can point`

`mathematical telescope on it, also.`

`Comp leads to a generalization of Everett's idea to apply QM to the`

`observer. Comp applies arithmetic and meta-arithmetic (a part of`

`arithmetic by Post, Gödel, Kleene & Co.) to the 'body' of the`

`mathematician, or at least the one who say yes doctor to a doctor`

`which serendipitously opts for the correct level, in a mathematical`

`precise sense: in this case it inherits of the hypostases, and the`

`logic of it determine the views you can have from inside. But the`

`simplest thing you can say on those views is that they all make us`

`more ignorant. The "concrete" relative Löbian machines get interesting`

`on the border of the computable and non computable, where very deep`

`sharable histories develop, in all case, from all views some mysteries`

`subsists, and some key mystery, the gap, have a quasi life of its own.`

`But *that* fact, that there are mysteries, is no more a mystery. And`

`in that sense, comp provides, I think, the first coherent picture of`

`almost everything, from God (oops!) to qualia, quanta included, and`

`this by assuming only seven arithmetical axioms.`

And the point is not that this is true, but that this is testable.

`Comp, not so much unlike salvia perhaps, put you naked in front of the`

`unknown. But not without tools.`

Bruno

-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32164033.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.