On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb 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
Hi Brent,
OK, but let us take the assumption that the mathematical truth of a sentence is all
that matters. Therefore my pointing at myself and stating the sentence "I am
F" makes it so? Why do I need to explicitly "know" a particular example of the formal
system F? Fiat existence! Weeeeeeeee!
You need to know what F is in order to reach the contradiction is step (5). You don't
have "knowledge that I am F" where F is a formal system. You only have knowledge that "I
have named myself 'F'".
Brent
Onward!
Stephen
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!
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://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 [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.
--
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.
