On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >>>> But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
> >>>> thus to contain universal internal observers,  leads already to
> >>>> indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although
> >>>> it
> >>>> is simpler to use comp to justify this).
> >>> If a wave washes one pile of sand onto another, thereby 'adding'
> >>> them
> >>> together, why does that generate universal internal observers?
> >> Adding is not enough. You need multiplication, and iteration.
> >> Then universal digital creatures appear, by logical consequences,
> >> and,
> >> as always, reflect themselves and all universal creatures, digital,
> >> and non digital, which leads them to harder and harder problems and
> >> questions.
> > Even if that's true, from where do they appear? To say they appear is
> > to admit that they are not themselves contained within addition or
> > multiplication.
> They are. Anything Turing emulable appears, and reappears in
> arithmetic, related to bigger and bigger natural numbers.

The appearance is contingent though, upon something being able to
recognize the pattern which is appearing to them. That pattern
recognition is not automatically guaranteed by any arithmetic logic.
We need a physical machine that remembers that it can remember, and
can experience that memory as an event. It needs to know what kinds of
strings of remembered digits constitute a meaningful pattern, or that
there could even be such a thing as a pattern. To say that patterns
appear and reappear in arithmetic takes the appearance of pattern
itself for granted, then usurps the primacy of the sense experience
which provides it.

> > To say they are creatures implies a creation.
> Why not. You could say that they are created by the addition and
> multiplication laws. You need only to bet that 1+1=2 and alike does
> not depend on us.

Because there's no mathematical logic to how or why that creation
could occur. If we posit a universe of arithmetic realism, how can we
accept that it falls off a cliff when it comes to the arithmetic of
it's own origins? What makes 1+1=2? Sense. Not primitive sense either,
but high order cognitive abstraction. There is no '1' or '2'
literally, they are ideas about our common sense - what we have in
common with everything. Numbers are literally 'figures', symbols which
can be applied mentally to represent many things, and to deploy
orderly control of some physical systems - but not everything can be
reduced to or controlled by numbers.

> > What
> > necessary logic turns a nuclear chain reaction (addition and
> > multiplication) into a nursery for problem solving sentience?
> The same logic making tiny system Turing universal. Usually some small
> part of classical logic is enough.

Why would any kind of universality or logic entail the automatic
development of sentience? What is logical about sentience?


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