On Aug 6, 12:46 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2011, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > If we 'need to agree on elementary principles' doesn't that mean it's
> > intersubjective?
>
> If we agree on principles, it means it is intersubjective, but this
> does not mean it is necessarily not objective. Something can be both
> intersubjective and objective.

But it's not intersubjective if we don't agree. You need to understand
math in the exact way that it is intended in order to agree. Certainly
as math becomes more complex, it can become less objective than simple
language. Mathematicians can disagree, but speakers of English don't
disagree on the use of the word 'the'.

> > That being burned causes pain or that pain hurts
> > doesn't need to be agreed upon at all.
>
> We are not on the same wave-length. If you do a theory of sensations,
> you might use the assertion that "pain hurts" as an axiom.

But pain hurts whether or not you have a theory about it. It already
is an axiom. You don't need to say Let Pain = Hurt.

> You will
> have to ask them to agree on them. It is not because many will agree
> that there is no an agreement.

No, I think you can just ask them 'does pain hurt?'. Arithmetic isn't
the same, the whole system of logic has to be introduced and
understood in advance before it's truths can be agreed upon.

> Of course "pain hurts" is a rather objective statements on a
> subjective experience. I guess in many theory things like that might
> be derived from more primitive definitions.

> > Physical to me is just an intellectual category of phenomena which can
> > be characterized by their adherence to physical law.
>
> And what is a physical law?

A category of consistent, quantifiable observations common to objects
outside of ourselves and distinct from phenomena with ourselves.

> > Can they be
> > described primarily by terms like mass, local boundaries, temperature,
> > density,
>
> That are measurable numbers. The one normally related to mathematical
> laws.

I would say that the numbers are our measurement, what they are
measuring is not necessarily a number.

> > interactions with other phenomena that are considered
> > physical.
>
> That is circular.

I'm trying to say that an actual bowling ball can be distinguished
from an imaginary bowling ball by it's interaction with actual bowling
pins. Not saying it would constitute evidence of physicality in the
positive (virtual bowling ball can knock over virtual pins) but that
it does suggest evidence of non-physicality in the negative (virtual
bowling ball cannot knock over actual pins by itself). A physical
bowling ball could potentially supervene upon a simulation however, by
being slammed into the screen or computer hard enough to break it.
Anything that could actually run a simulation of bowling pins could
potentially be crushed by a large enough or small enough bowling ball
going at the right speed. Math alone cannot supervene upon physical
bowling pins.
>
> >>> I think that I could have a dream where 2+2=5
> >>> and it could make perfect sense in the dream.
>
> >> Dreams illustrates that sense can be put on anything.
>
> > Right. That's the point. If you turn it around, nothing can make sense
> > unless you make sense of it also
>
> Not sure. The dinosaurs made sense before the humans made sense of
> them.

But not before the dinosaurs made sense of their own existence, or the
biosphere made sense of reptiles.

> I think that the primality of 17 makes sense independently of
> any observer or physical reality. I mean that the proposition that
> there is no numbers different from 1 and 17 capable to divide 17" is
> true in all circumstance. Even in absence of a physical reality.
> Indeed I begin to explain that such arithmetical truth implies the
> existence of consciousness and stable first person plural beliefs in
> local observable physical phenomena.

I do get what you're saying, and I agree that the internal consistency
or arithmetic, prime numbers, etc is compelling as a primitive, but
that consistency is not accessible to all states of consciousness -
like a dream. All states of consciousness though imply sensorimotive
experience. Being present. Even if there is no exterior geometry of a
dream world, you can still be present in a void. To compute in the
real world, we need to use physical materials with certain properties.
It would be hard to build a calculator out of clouds. It could be done
I suppose, but the object-ness of a material is directly proportionate
to how appropriate it would be to hosting/reflecting our calcuations.
You can simulate a cloud with virtual water droplets and convection
currents, but can you simulate silicon microprocessors with fog?

> > . Including arithmetic. It doesn't
> > make sense by itself.
>
> Why would you need an observer for making true that only 1 and 17
> divides 17?
> That seems to me super-anthropocentric.

To me it seems anthropocentric to imagine that an abstract human
artifact like 17 can exist without an observer.

> I think you are confusing the truth of "1 and 17 are the only numbers
> dividing 17" with the proposition "humans have discovered that 1 and
> 17 are the only numbers dividing 17"

I think you are confusing just the opposite. If comp is right, I can
make a computer program that believes that 3 divides into 17 equally,
and make a whole race of universal machines that will never be able to
figure out any differently. Now if I get rid of the humans, 17 divided
by 3 will be #, objectively. Any mathematical consequences of this
would simply be be understood as an interesting puzzle or open
question of mathematics.

> > It needs the physical abacus of a microchip or a
> > loom or a brain to do that.
>
> Why?
> Also, those object makes use of more complex arithmetical relations.

Because there I can't think of any compelling evidence that numbers
exist in a vacuum.

> >> In a dream I
> >> thought that some windows' curtain disproved "p -> p".
> >> "2+2 = 5" can make sense in a lot of real contexts, like biological
> >> one, but this just means you have to use something else, nit the
> >> natural numbers, to describe the process. One proton + one proton can
> >> give thousand of particles, if smashed with the relevant energy, but
> >> one proton is not the number one, and smashing is not arithmetical
> >> addition.
>
> >>> I would say that it's
> >>> still intersubjective, only the scope of phenomena which shares
> >>> access
> >>> to it encompasses non-living matter as well as symbolic abstraction.
>
> >> The day I wake up believing that comp is true, I don't believe in non
> >> living matter, nor any stuffy matter at all. It is in our number
> >> mind.
> >> Matter is a projection from inside coherent sharable piece of dream/
> >> computations.
>
> > I agree that matter, as it is experienced subjectively, is a
> > projection of the PRIF, which is at heart mathematical relations, but
> > they are mathematical relations of what? Feeling. Sense. Experience.
> > These things can insist without even mathematical coherence. Pain
> > needs nothing except it's ability to inspire the motivation for it to
> > end. Any mathematics are superimposed as an afterthought.
>
> In your opinion. If by math you mean analysis and physics, I can give
> sense to what you say in the comp theory. But I have to assume the
> numbers at the start. Most theories do it.

That's why my view opens the door to territory that is completely
unexplored. I assume that numbers and sense are mutually self-defining
through non-self projection. It's ok to assume numbers at the start,
but just recognize that numbers can't mean anything without a
corresponding sense that can be made out of them as a sensorimotive
experience. They are in fact the same thing, just ontologically
involuted.

>On the mind-body issue,
> which is transdisciplinar, we have just to be entirely explicit.

Explicit is great if you mean defining relations to the highest degree
of precision possible without distorting what is being defined, but
the same quality which makes numbers most objective makes them least
subjective; least appropriate for describing what our most subjective
experiences are.

> >>> Also, what if a system of arithmetic is derived from physical
> >>> isomorphism instead? If, like drops of water, 2+2 =1 big water drop.
>
> >> Computers used all the time the boolean law 1+1= 0.  But this does
> >> not
> >> put any doubt that the natural 1 added to the natural number 1 gives
> >> the natural number 2. It just means that there are different sort of
> >> numbers, and/or different operation on them.
>
> > If there are different sorts of numbers and operation, then how can
> > they really be objectively primitive?
>
> I don't see any problem. There are different sorts of dinosaurs too.
> They might be, in some theory, different sort of particles. This might
> be in each case independent of the objective nature, or relative
> objective nature of such objects.

Then why not just consider qualia different sorts of numbers? What is
it about yellow that isn't a primitive number?

> > Natural numbers are an invention
> > of an entity that thinks,
>
> The existence of numbers, with the laws of addition and
> multiplication, entails the existence of universal numbers. They can
> introspect themselves and discover, for themselves, the numbers and
> their laws. They can even discover themselves in there, and this on a
> variety of levels.

I don't think that you can say that they do that without a
mathematician being there to watch and understand, or a silicon chip
to prove it. What numbers help you discover is the logic behind sense
and the sense behind logic, but they don't necessarily reveal a logic
independent of sense. (That may be my main point right there).

> > and thought is an invention of an entity
> > that feels.
>
> The question which interests me is: who invented the entity that feels?

The entity that feels (say a cell) was invented by the entity that
senses (molecule), which is invented by the entity that detects (atom
or maaaybe subatomic 'particle'), which is all divisions of the
singularity into discrete mass-energy time-space topologies. It works
from top down as well, the entity that feels may be co-invented by the
Sun and Earth, or by archetypal entities which are future potentials
echoed backward through time from the singularity. I think it's likely
all the same thing objectively.


> >>> I do agree that arithmetic may be as close to objective that we can
> >>> get,
>
> >> OK, nice.
>
> >>> but I'm not convinced that it doesn't arise from proto-numerical
> >>> phenomena of an infra-quantitative, gestural nature.
>
> >> It can't. Natural numbers can't be explained from something which
> >> does
> >> not assume them, or equivalent. The very concept of formal system use
> >> the notion of numbers at the meta-level.
> >> Also, everyone can agree on simple axioms for the (natural)
> >> numbers. I
> >> am not sure this might be sustained for concepts or words like proto-
> >> numerical, phenomenon, infra-quantity, gestural, and nature.
>
> > It's only humans who are educated in mathematics that can agree on
> > natural number axioms.
>
> Well, that's enough, if *you* agree with them.
> But I think it is false. Aliens will agree with us, or without us,
> that 17 is prime (when asserted in their language). All Löbian entity
> agrees with this, and the class of Löbian entity can be said to
> enlarge a lot the class of humans. (I am no talking about *correct*
> Löbian machines). Even RA asserts that (x divides 17) implies that ((x
> = 1) or (x = 17)), with (x divides y) defined by (it exists z such
> that x*z = y).

I repeat my example again. If you can believe that it's false in a
dream or when you're hallucinating, then, in comp, you should be able
to generate that hallucination in your template insane transhuman and
exterminate all other entities in the universe, including yourself.
Then 17 is no longer prime, it's just 3 x #, where # is defined
explicitly that which divides evenly into 17 by 3. Isn't that what
imaginary numbers do? Can't I just define # is 'that quantity which
makes 17 not prime'?

> > Other species would not necessarily be able to
> > do so.
>
> Why not?
>
> > Where were numbers 100MY ago? There were certainly gestural,
> > natural phenomena present on the biosphere, but I don't believe that a
> > single natural number was yet conceived.
>
> By humans? Probably not. But 17 is prime in an out of time and out of
> space manner. Indeed, subjective time, and varieties of physical times
> emerge from "17 is prime" & Co (assuming comp). This makes comp
> testable.

Covered in my #xample.
>
> (UDA explains why, assuming comp, and AUDA explains how, assuming just
> addition and multiplication (and definitions, of course, notably
> Theaetetus' classical definition of knowledge).

I believe you. I just think it's inside out. Which it needs to be if
you want to get anything done. I'm just thinking that we can get even
more done if we understand that it works in spite of being inside out.

Craig
http://s33light.org

-- 
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