On 30 Aug 2011, at 16:13, benjayk wrote:

I just had an interesting idea with regards to our
ontological/epistemological debate. Could it be that the number 0 is
conscious itself, by virtue of being itself (and all numbers share that
property, because the make just sense relative to 0)?

That is weird.

I can find sense, though. For example there are enumeration phi_i in which phi_0 is universal, and might have its state described by 0. And this would mean that 0 is an initial state of computations shared by all LUMs (including us, assuming comp and Theaetetus). Ah! That make 0 a sort of grandpa, or grandma.

But I am not sure any LUMs would take that idea seriously. It can only be a sort of arithmetical 1004. True but trivial.

0 by itself is a fabulous number. Some book have been written on it. I like to see poetically 0 like death or annilation, and 2 as life and creation. They are the two godesses needed to keep quiet the imagination of the 1 in between.

This would pretty much
merge our ideas, because we need no outside transcendent primary ontology
consciousness, because numbers are the primary consciousness itself.

This is different. With comp consciousness is concomitant with the numbers AND their (sigma_1) relations between them. This includes a sort of Indra Net of Universal relations.

It is not the numbers which are conscious, it is the person incarnated to deep number relations.

The laws of addition and multiplication are enough to get those universal relations. (Indeed even just one degree four diophantine polynomial is enough). Consciousness is related with the limiting properties of those reflexions. Replace "reflexion by mirror" by "emulation by universal machine", and you can interpret the Indra Net. It is called also the Indra Web, and you can see the Universal Dovetailer as a spider spinning the computationalist Indra Web.

The point is technical. With comp physics has to be extracted under the form of an uncertainty calculus on sigma_1 (with oracle) relations. The oracle are the problem because some of them leads to White Rabbits universes. But that is the interesting part. It translate a part of the mind-body problem into a mathematical problem.

Why to attribute consciousness to the number 0, when comp invite you naturally to attribute consciousness to the person (whose soul lives in Platonia) manifestable through a universal relation relatively to you?

And by this, of course, we can attribute consciousness to a vast set of "self-aware" entities on the border of arithmetical (and many other but theologicaly equivalent) truth.

Technically I think currently that consciousness arrives at sub- universality (strictly weaker than universal machine, but with still strong self-related power), but I will keep the universal threshold for reason of simplicity. With Löbianity you get self-consciousness.

I think the jumping spiders might already be Löbian, like all mammals. They can bond with you, unlike most insect and worms; but then who know.

Let us admit "zero is conscious" is accepted in the mainstream, and then suddenly the news are that zero is not conscious, after all. Could such an information change your mind about accepting or not a digital brain?



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