On 01 Feb 2012, at 16:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/1/2012 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 31 Jan 2012, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
Hi,
In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying
hard to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in
like the ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless
people are willing to contemplate alternative ideas?
I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that
qualia explains the universe, that fits with the proven
consequences of comp, where quanta are case of qualia. He is not
bad at introspection, he might grasp comp a little bit, but he
does not try to submit a theory in the usual meaning of the
terms. So we can't help.
Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a "pretext for not
addressing the mind-body problem by materialist", and what we can
already see from a formulation of the mind body problem when
computationalism is taken seriously into account. This already
leads to a rational alternative, if not reversal.
To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of
"Existence" illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.
Hi Bruno,
My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic
axiom: Existence exists. If this is difficult for you
to grasp, please watch this lecture on Epistemology:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222
This did not help. Sorry. I am used to appreciate Ayn Rand, but
progress have been made. Pointing on a playlist with 30 videos is
unecessary distraction. If you have a point, you should try to make
it.
As I am not as skilled in composing words as many others I was
allowing the argument of some other people, that I agree with, to
stand in the place of my own. You might take this as a sign that I
lack understanding of the concepts but you would be mistaken.
I would not do that.
A person that is mute and armless can nevertheless have consistent
thoughts.
Sure.
BTW, I should not have to point out that we have gone through this
before, but since I value your ideas I guess that I need to do it
again, but unhappily so.
I have no ideas. Comp is as old as humanity, even if the discovery of
the universal Turing machine changed everything.
And this makes arithmetic (or hereditarily finite sets, or whatever
first order specification of a universal system *is* a convenable TOE.
The rest are definitions and theorems, and is the study of something
much bigger than arithmetic (arithmetic seen from inside).
When you say "Existence exist", either I interpret it intuitively
by "something exists" --- the non-nothing theory---and I hardly
doubt it, or I interpret it as a reification of existence, like if
it was a property or an object, and that would deserve a precise
(and non standard) theoretical frame to be made precise. Without
precision, an expression like "Existence exists" does not convey
information, and seems like a category error.
It is a tautology, similar to A is A, but maximal is that is is
not limited to specific instances such as what "something exists"
conveys. What one states "something exists" that necessitates the
possibility that "something else may not exist". I take Existence as
primary and primitive and neutral.
I don't get it.
What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems
justifying the other form that "existence" can take.
All that does not contradict itself and is thus necessarily
possible exists, thus I claim that existence is necessary possibility.
That's an old idea in philosophy. It is the indexical idea that
existence is consistence seen from inside. In first order logic it
makes a lot of sense, given that consistence is equivalent with the
existence of a model.
And in AUDA, the necessity of the possibility of p, BDp, is the
consequence of sigma_1 truth, and its leads to an arithmetical
quantization. Here Bp is for (Bew(p) & Diamond("1=1")), and Dp is
(Diamond(p) v Bew(f) 'relative consistency)). p is sigma_1.
Once you are using notion of necessity or possibility, being precise
forces you to suggest in which modal logic you are working, and how
you justify it. There are infinities of modal logics.
UDA justifies the use of the self-reference modal logic, and their
variants. Gödel's results (and Löb's one, and Solovay) don't let many
possible choice for the ideally correct machines. The variant
described above are the one needed to find the correct physic (correct
with respect to comp, if you get UDA).
I don't know if comp is true or not, but comp makes theoretical
computer science a lantern to find the key. It allows a mathematical
formulation of many subproblems of the (comp) mind body problem.
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.
