Stephan, Thank you for your support and kind words. Actually you may be the first learned person to actually read the paper. I sent it to Yau and to Chalmers, but I doubt that they got beyond the Abstract. Now I need to admit that I am neither expert in string theory or math logic. For example I am unable to argue pro or con regarding Chalmers conclusion. My only contribution is to suggest that the compact manifold of S-T Yau may be a basis for consciousness and perhaps much more, even SUSY. Richard
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:48 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical > communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact > Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical > interactions as they each contain the laws of physics; and collectively > they may manifest consciousness as well as perhaps Platonia and "cyclic > gossiping" as their variable properties across the universe may manifest a > Peano arithmetic. Regarding communication each spherical element/manifold > instantly maps all the other manifolds and all physical phenomena to its > interior. http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0044 > >> -- > > > Hi Richard, > > I am highly skeptical of string theory because of its Landscape > problem, the lack of observational evidence of super-partner particles, the > fact that it is not back-ground independent and its underlying > philosophical assumptions. All that aside, I will take a look at the > referenced paper. > > Onward! > > Stephen > > Hi Richard, > > I like your paper! I would like to point out something. You quoted > > [Chalmers(1995)]: > (1) Assume my reasoning powers are captured by some formal system F (to > put this more briefly, "I am > F"). Consider the class of statements I can know to be true, given this > assumption. > (2) Given that I know that I am F, I know that F is sound (as I know that > I am sound). > > > But you don't know what F is, as a formal system. You've just ostensively > identified it by pointing to yourself and naming it "F". > > Brent > > Indeed, I know that > the larger system F' is sound, where F' is F supplemented by the further > assumption "I am F". > (Supplementing a sound system with a true statement yields a sound > system.) > (3) So I know that G(F') is true, where this is the Gödel sentence of the > system F'. > (4) But F' could not see that G(F') is true (by Gödel's theorem). > (5) By assumption, however, I am now effectively equivalent to F'. After > all, I am F supplemented by the > knowledge that I am F. > (6) This is a contradiction, so the initial assumption must be false, and > F must not have captured my > powers of reasoning after all. > (7) The conclusion generalizes: my reasoning powers cannot be captured by > any formal system. > > This reminds me of problematic sentences in logic such as "Stephen > cannot know the truth value of this sentence". While I can only > inconsistently speculated on the truth value of that sentence, you, not > being Stephen, can consistently determine its truth value. I see this as > arguing that truth values are quantities that are strictly local and not > global. > Since I am a HUGE fan of Leibniz, I like the Monad-like quality that > you are considering with the concept of a CYCM, but wonder if the > particular geometric properties are being arbitrarily selected. It seems to > me that any monadic construction will do so long as it can support a > self-referential logic, such as Peano Arithmetic. Additionally, how do we > deal with the apparently bosonic property of minds given the very fermionic > property of matter. Could supersymmetry really be a theory of the mind-body > problem? Some people, like Matti Pitkanen, > <http://matpitka.blogspot.com/>think so and I sympathize with this view. But > it still seems to assume too > much. Maybe this is just the price of a theory. ;-) > > Onward! > > Stephen > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4806 - Release Date: 02/12/12 > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
