On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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's correct. It is contingent of the universal number, and the
universal numbers making the first one more relatively probable. But
all that exist in arithmetic.
That pattern
recognition is not automatically guaranteed by any arithmetic logic.
In your non-comp theory.
We need a physical machine that remembers that it can remember,
That's "Bp -> BBp". Universal machine are like that.
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.
Not really, for it appears and reappears only in the mind of universal
numbers. It makes sense for them, and indeed they will be astonished
that apparent material can lead to that sense. But although locally
true, this is globally wrong. Sense is necessarily a first person
notion, and relies on the abstract but real configuration involving
infinities of arithmetical relations.
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.
But there is.
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.
Truth. Why do you want someone to assess the truth for something being
true. That is anthropomorphic. Th greek get well that point, and
originate the whole scientific enterprise from there, as in the
conclusion of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM
If not, it is the whole idea of a reality which makes no more sense,
and we get solipsist or anthropomorphic.
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,
No. That's number description. Not numbers.
and to deploy
orderly control of some physical systems - but not everything can be
reduced to or controlled by numbers.
But that's what number can discover by themselves. Once you are at the
treshold of numbers, the complexity of the relations (even just
between numbers) get higher than what you can describe with numbers.
the numbers already know that, with reasonable account of what is
knowledge.
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?
The illogicality of sentience. From the point of view of numbers, when
they look at themselves, they discover, for logical reason, that there
is something non logical about them. Then the comp act of faith
appears to be the simplest way to restore logic, except for that act
of faith and the belief in addition and multiplication.
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 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.
