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 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.

Reply via email to