On 15 Sep 2011, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/15/2011 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2011, at 06:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is
true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the
relevant
questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
You are the one assuming some physical reality. But mechanism can
explains where such physical rules come from. They are
consequences of addition and multiplication. More exactly, their
appearances for the average universal machine are consequences of
0, +, and *.
Dear Bruno,
Could you give us a sketch of exactly how 'physical rules' or
the appearance thereof are the "consequences of 0, + and *"? I
think that there is more to the explanation than the fact that 0,
+ and * exist.... This is the part of your work that I still do
not understand.
Well, it is the second part. the one I call AUDA.
In a sketch.
1) define provable-by-machine-PA in the arithmetical language {0,
s, +, *, "E", "A", etc.}. Like in Gödel 1931. This gives Bp (for
beweisbar <some arithmetical proposition>. This will play the role
of the "scientific rational opinion of the machine".
2) Solovay: the truth about the logic of Bp is given by G*. The
provable part of it is given by G.
3) define the knowledge of the machine by Bp & p. (Theatetus) The
logic of Bp & p is given by S4Grz (a logic of a form of
intuitionist evolving antisymmetrical knowledge.
4) define observable by Bp & Dt (logic Z and Z*-
5) define feel-able by Bp & Dt & p (logic X and X*)
Note that the splitting proof/truth (G/G*) extends to Bp & Dt, and
to Bp & Dt & p; that is the observable and the feel-able.
Then (eneter the arithmetical UD): restrict the arithmetical
realization of the sentence letters p to the sigma_1 sentence. You
get the logic Z1* (quanta and qualia). the quanta appears in the
non communicable part, and are particular case of qualia, and this
assure our coherence: we share histories (this is what Everett
confirms the most: we are collectively multiplied by huge factor,
and symmetry and linearity appears at the arithmetical quantum
bottom.
If comp is correct, and if the Theatetus's idea is correct, Z1*
gives the probability one, and you can deduce the other
probabilities from there (von Neumann old criteria for a genuine
quantum logic).
I hope I was not too sketchy. Use this to dig on the second part
(the interview of the LUM, it is AUDA) of the sane04 paper.
Bruno
snip
Umm, OK. David Deutsch discusses ideas in his new book that seem
to strongly ague against this idea that an equation, even a sigma_1
sentence that is very elaborate, alone can act as a proof.
I have never said that. A proof is a sequence, or a graph, or a
diagram, but always amenable to a sequence, of formula, starting from
other formula.
I am having to reevaluate my thinking of UDA and AUDA as I read The
Beginning of Infinity...
This means you have not understand them. It is just a question of
understanding. You might decide to reevaluate the truth of the
mechanist assumption, but I am not really interested in that question.
The reasoning shows that mechanism is incompatible with phsyicalism/
naturalism, and it need to be understood, not evaluate, nor
reevaluate, nor accepted. But understood or perhaps to be shown
containing a flaw, or a missing step, or something unclear.
UDA shows that mechanism is not compatible with physicalism. David
Deutsch is both mechanist and physicalist, so its theory/world-view is
inconsistent/non-sensical (like the current widespread mechanist
Aristotelianism).
I still suspect that you are neglecting the role that you are
playing with regard to your work. Without a person (or something
like an entity to whom meaningfulness can obtain) to interpret the
sigma_1 sentences, they are not different from a random
configuration of marks on a chalkboard or pixels on a computer
monitor.
You confuse a formula (a mathematical object in metamathematics) and a
representation of a formula.
The problem of Boltzmann Brains in infinite universes seems related
to this problem that I am seeing!
The UD can be considered as a strong and precise generalization of
that idea. That is the comp mind-body problem. A transformation of the
mind-body problem into a purely arithmetical body problem. The
solution already found shows that the picture of the epistemological
reality of the machine is a theology in the greek sense of the term: a
theory of everything explaining the origin of God, souls, intellect,
the observable realm and the feel-able dynamics/interactions.
You seem to rely to much on a hypothetical 3p to act as an abstract
version of a "perceiver of meaningfulness" without admitting this
reliance.
It is explicit in the act of saying "yes to the doctor", which is part
of the explicit assumption. The 'hypothetical 3p", arithmetic, is
taught in schools since Pythagorus (at least). The human intuition
about it is probably as old as music.
If 3p is truly independent of any 1p,
It is, by arithmetical realism. If you believe that "17 is prime"
depends on humans, I will ask you to define "humans" and to show
explicitly the functional dependence.
then how are they related such that we can, as individual minds,
have a subjective experience of 3p aspects of existence?
The 3p physical aspects is the 1p plural person views of the 3p
arithmetic, when seen from inside. (Consequence of UDA).
With AUDA we can say more. The 1p/3p relations come, in the machines'
perspectives, from ignoring that Bp is equivalent with Bp & p, which
true equivalence is known only by the "divine intellect" (G*). This
gives a theory of non syntactical knowledge, obeying the admitted
knowledge theory (S4) , equivalent with the correct opinion of the
correct machine, but not in a way such that the machine can know this,
except by betting on comp and its own correctness, and this, at its
own risk and peril.
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.
