On 15 Sep 2011, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:

## Advertising

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 istrueenough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from therelevantquestions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?You are the one assuming some physical reality. But mechanism canexplains where such physical rules come from. They areconsequences of addition and multiplication. More exactly, theirappearances for the average universal machine are consequences of0, +, and *.Dear Bruno,Could you give us a sketch of exactly how 'physical rules' orthe appearance thereof are the "consequences of 0, + and *"? Ithink that there is more to the explanation than the fact that 0,+ and * exist.... This is the part of your work that I still donot 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 GĂ¶del 1931. This gives Bp (forbeweisbar <some arithmetical proposition>. This will play the roleof the "scientific rational opinion of the machine".2) Solovay: the truth about the logic of Bp is given by G*. Theprovable part of it is given by G.3) define the knowledge of the machine by Bp & p. (Theatetus) Thelogic of Bp & p is given by S4Grz (a logic of a form ofintuitionist 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, andto Bp & Dt & p; that is the observable and the feel-able.Then (eneter the arithmetical UD): restrict the arithmeticalrealization of the sentence letters p to the sigma_1 sentence. Youget the logic Z1* (quanta and qualia). the quanta appears in thenon communicable part, and are particular case of qualia, and thisassure our coherence: we share histories (this is what Everettconfirms the most: we are collectively multiplied by huge factor,and symmetry and linearity appears at the arithmetical quantumbottom.If comp is correct, and if the Theatetus's idea is correct, Z1*gives the probability one, and you can deduce the otherprobabilities from there (von Neumann old criteria for a genuinequantum 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.BrunosnipUmm, OK. David Deutsch discusses ideas in his new book that seemto strongly ague against this idea that an equation, even a sigma_1sentence 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 TheBeginning 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 areplaying with regard to your work. Without a person (or somethinglike an entity to whom meaningfulness can obtain) to interpret thesigma_1 sentences, they are not different from a randomconfiguration of marks on a chalkboard or pixels on a computermonitor.

`You confuse a formula (a mathematical object in metamathematics) and a`

`representation of a formula.`

The problem of Boltzmann Brains in infinite universes seems relatedto 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 abstractversion of a "perceiver of meaningfulness" without admitting thisreliance.

`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 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.