On 22 Sep 2011, at 21:12, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/22/2011 11:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net > wrote:
On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz' "per- established harmony" idea. Could you sketch your thoughts on the similarity that you see? I have my own thoughts about pre- established harmony, but I see, in Craig's ideas, other concepts similar to those of Leibniz that do relate to a notion of "harmony" and other somewhat unrelated concepts but not necessarily include the "pre-established" aspect. I haev an argument against the concept of "pre-established" as Leibniz uses it.

From what I understand of Craig's theory it describes a difference between first person and third person experience/reality. Each being two sides of the same coin, where first person experience is the interior side of what its like to be the material. The first person experience of is indeterminable (and possibly relies on the indeterminism of physics?) and can cause physical changes above and beyond what can be predicted by any third-person physics. While we are a machine according to this theory, we are a special machine due to our history as organisms and the special properties of the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. which form the basis of our biochemistry. Functional equivalence is either not possible, or will lead to various brain disorders or zombies.

Hi Jason!

Excellent post!! But can you see how this is really not so different from Bruno's "result"?! Bruno just substitutes (N, +, *) of matter and the 1p experience is the 'inside dream" of Arithmetic.

I am not sure what you are saying. I just give a deductive argument that if my (generalized) brain can be emulated by a material digital device, then physics is a branch of number's psychology, itself a branch of number theory (or combinator theory, etc.).

Same basic outline, very different semantics, but a radically different interpretation...

My argument does not depend on interpretation. That is why it is a proof.

Craig does make a big deal about "special properties" but the properties of carbon, etc. do matter when it comes to real functionality. While it is true that we can build universal Turing machine equivalents out of practically anything, explaining and modeling the physical world is not about computations that do not require resources or can run forever or such "ideal" things,

It is. Or you have to find the flaw. I am, as always, open to search it with you, step by step.

it is about how all this stuff that has particular properties interacts with each other. We simply cannot dismiss all of the details that encompass our reality by just invoking computational universality.

We have no choice. Of course, we can, like Craig, just assume that comp is false.

What is that truism? The Devil is in the Details!

My own thesis follows this same outline, except that I propose that the topological spaces are the "outside" and algebras (which would include Bruno's (N, +, *) and minds are the inside. This outline dispenses with the problem of psycho-physical parallelism that I will make a comment on below. There is no need to explain why or how matter and mind are harmonized or synchronized when, ultimately, they are jsut two different (behaviorally and structuraly) aspect of each other, all of this follow from M. Stone's representation theorem. My idea is a bit tricky because we have to treat topological spaces (such as the totally disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces dual to Boolean logics)

I think you have good intuition here, but you need to develop them. Note that there are semantic of G and S4Grz in term of totally disconnected Hausdorff spaces, or the Cantor scattered space which ground that intuition, and the Stone duality, in the frame of self- reference, as I think I have already told you (work of Blok and Esakia).

both as the form and content of 1p and as mathematical objects. This is not a problem because math is all about representing 1p and more! This makes sense because mathematical representations can both represent themselves and be what they represent. WE see this explained in a round about way in Stephen Wolfram's essay on intractability and physics.

The basic idea of the essay is that physical systems are, effectively, the best possible computational model of themselves. We do not need to postulate computations separate from the physical processes themselves, if we are going to stay int eh semi-classical realm. If we wish to go to a fully quantum model, they the wavefunction (and its evolution) of a physical system is the computation itself of that system. Vaughan Pratt argued that QM is just a consequence of the way that the stone duality is implemented. I am just taking this ideas and exploring them for flaws and falsification, but to do so I have to be able to fully explain them (not an easy job!) but that is what is necessary to claim that I understand them.

This assessment of Craig's idea seems accurate from what I can tell at the start but falls down on the epiphenomena bit AFAIK...

Jason said that Craig's theory entails consciousness is an epiphenomenon. I wait Craig's reply, given that he gives a role to the subjectivity. It "insists", Craig told us. No idea what *that* means, but I think he introduce that idea for escaping the accusation of making consciousness an epiphenomenon. To be sure Stathis has convincingly show that Craig is not coherent on this (and so can say anything).

Consciousness to Craig is an epiphenomenon, since he has said there is no reason to evolve this tehnicolor cartesian theater.

I need to get his comment on this statement about the Cartesian theater.

The similarity I see to the pre-established harmony is that Liebniz posits two realities, a physical reality and reality of experiences. Each follows their own laws independently of the other, but physics does not affect or could not implement a mind, nor is the mind really affecting physics. Instead, physical law is such that it coincides with what a mind would do even if there were no mind, and the mind experiences what physical law would suggest even if there were no physical world. It is analagous to a matrix- world where we experiencing a pre-recorded life and experiencing everything of that individual. Liebniz postulated his idea when it became clear that Newton's laws suggested a conservation of not only energy (as Descartes was aware) but also momentum. Therefore an immaterial soul could have no affect on physics. This led Leibniz to the idea that God setup both to necessarily agree before hand.


About this pre-established harmony: Leibniz proposed it as a way to select the "best of possible worlds", given all possible, and explain the synchrony of events (that his hypothesis of Monads required to exist) between monads.

Recall that the monads are "windowless" and to not exchange substances. (BTW, this effectively makes them totally disconnected spaces if we consider the topological implication of this property of windowlessness!) Monads have both internal aspects (defining 1p content) and external aspects (defining physical reality) that , as you point out "... follow their own laws independently of the other, but physics does not affect or could not implement a mind, nor is the mind really affecting physics"; but if we follow my thesis there would be no minds without physics nor physics without minds per se, as the duality between algebras and topological spaces is a form of "natural transformation" between Categories. Yes, there would be physics for monads that do not have self-awareness - such as electrons and quarks, but self-awareness is a higher order computational modeling process that need not be instantiated (pace Russell) but is possible given sufficient topological and, dually, algebraic structure. So this thesis implies a very weak form of panpsychism. It can be proven that Leibniz's pre-ordained harmony implies a logical contradiction and thus is flawed: even an omnipotent god cannot perform computations of infinite NP-Complete problems in zero time - which is exactly what is required to have god establish the harmony of the universe prior to creating it or as you wrote: "God setup both to necessarily agree before hand". How can one perform a task that requires an eternity to complete the set up in the first place? It cannot ever begin!

The alternative to Leibniz' self-contradicting explanation is to consider that the NP-Complete computation as running for eternity,

NP-completeness concerns polynomial tractability. I have never understood why you refer to it.

it never begins and it never ends - kinda like Bruno's UD* - and 1p are finite instances or "streams" of this eternal computational process. Each stream instantiates a Monad and the psycho-physical parallelism is the natural result of the Stone duality between the insidge (logical algebras) and the outside (topological spaces), no need to have an explanation of mind and body interactions! All the neat stuff follows from considering how minds interact with each other. The appearance of a "beginning of time (and space!)" that we seem to have is simply an artifact of the finiteness of our 1p. One interesting and strange twist of this idea is that it implies that we never actually observe the outside aspects of monads (Leibniz does mention this in his Monadology), we only experience the internal representations of them. This twist is a form of the argument that we find in the Matrix thought-experiment that since we cannot prove that we are not in a matrix we should assume that we are and work out the consequences. This idea also seems consistent with Russell's thesis that "the set of all the universes that make up the Multiverse, contains no information at all, and is in fact Nothing; it is just from the inside, as mere descriptions – bits of strings – that we are, that there seems, from our point of view, to be something." quoting from http://www.scitechexplained.com/2010/06/theory-of-nothing-written-by-russell-k-standish-the-multiverse-quantum-immortality-and-the-meaning-of-life/

Consciousness exists, so there is something. It can't be an illusion, given that an illusion requires consciousness. But Russell is right in the sense that the "everything" philosophy minimize the TOE information needed.

        Recall how Observer moments are finite?

Not Bostrom 1-OM, which are infinite in the mechanist theories.
3-OM are just (relative) computational states.

Does this not imply that there is an event horizon effect in the history of an observer whose 1p is given in terms of OMs? This is an effective cut-off on information that follows from its ability to only resolve a finite amount of information, which is just another way of saying that OMs are finite. Thus this idea implies that the "singularity" of the Big bang never happened nor necessarily exists, an interesting and counter-intuitive implication! (Penrose and Hawking's singularity theorems work only if gravity exists at infinitesimal size/ infinite energy scale and this is, on its face, merely an idealization.) We would see an event horizon in our most distant past, but not because there is an infinite gravitational gradient behind it. Because of this (and considerations such as those that Russell explains in his book), my thesis implies the "perfect cosmological principle" that any average observer would see pretty much the same thing as any other no matter where in a universe it found itself. All observers would see an event horizon in their distant past and would see a universe that they believe is middle aged.

This idea also how the appearence of a Cartesian theater effect, that (pace Dennett) actually explains something without an actual infinite regress of explanations! Basically, the homunculus of the Cartesian Theater model is proposed to be something like a "strange attractor" on the configuration space or, by the dually, computation space of the brain. The attractor is a computational model of the global behavior of the brain and is capable of computing simulations of itself since, if we believe in computational universality, a model of a computation is a computation too. So the experience that we have of being a "driver in a body" makes sense, given that what we actually experience of the world is the brain's Virtual Reality simulation of the world *and* this simulation is a computation capable of simulating itself,

A computation does not necessarily simulate itself, although universal machine can simulate their own computations.

albeit at a lower resolution and level of complexity. Since the brain has access to finite physical resoulces to run the computations there will be a short truncation of the regress of simulations within simulations; maybe only 3 to 4 recursions, I figure, at the most.

Kleene's theorem is the tool for cutting the infinite regression in computer science. AUDA's self-reference, and intensional variants of it, is 100% based on this theorem, even if it is hidden in the arithmetical soundness and completeness theorem of Solovay.



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