On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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.

What are the properties of arithmetic contingent on?

> > 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.

Those are just letters and symbols. What or who makes them mean
something and why?

> > 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.

I don't think sense is a first person notion, it is the very capacity
to define first person and third person as separate (opposite) on one
level, and united on another. Sense creates the arithmetical
relations, but not infinitely. Arithmetical relations are derived a
posteriori of sense embodiments. Sense generates the capacities,
intentions, symmetries, and rhythms that underlie recursive
enumeration, as well as frames the context of all sequence and
consequence. It all has to make sense. Not everything has to make
numbers. Dizzy doesn't make numbers, but it makes sense. It is a
sensation that makes sense to an embodied animal, but not to a

> >>> 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.

What is it?

> > 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.

Truth requires sense. Not everything that makes sense is true (fiction
for example), but everything that is true makes sense.

> Why do you want someone to assess the truth for something being
> true. That is anthropomorphic.

It's ontologically necessary. What is a truth without it being
detectable in some way to something?

> 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

Great video, but now you are the one anthropomorphizing. Just because
the released man doesn't create the outside world by seeing it doesn't
mean that the outside world can exist without being held together by
experienced sense relations on every level. My computer doesn't create
the internet, but that doesn't mean that the internet isn't created on

> If not, it is the whole idea of a reality which makes no more sense,
> and we get solipsist or anthropomorphic.

That's where sense comes in. Sense divides the totality into
solipsistic/anthropomorphic and objective/mechanemorphic on one level,
but bleeds through that division on another level, thus creating a
diffracted continuum that oscillates through time but remains
continuous across space (and vice versa). Numbers are a synthetic
analysis of that process, distilled to a nearly meaningless but nearly
omnipotent extreme of universality (qualitative flatness). Numbers are
the opposite of the solipsistic personal experience (qualitative depth
asymptotic to 'Selfness' itself). They are the least appropriate tools
to describe feeling.

> > 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.

I'm not talking about the characters "1" or "2", I'm talking about
what they represent. The concept of numbers defines them as figurative
entities, but you make them literal. That's ok with me if you are
doing that for mathematical purposes since it is a powerful way to
approach it, through the negative symmetry, but just as you might
trace a picture better if it's upside down, eventually you should turn
it right side up when you finish. To say that numbers literally exist
but matter does not is the logo-morphic position, orthogonal to both
anthropomorphic and mechanemorphic, but it is still as pathologically
unreal if taken literally. Again, thats ok with me, we need
surrealists too, I'm just saying, when the rubber hits the road, it's
not sanity.

> > 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.

In your logopomorphic theory of comp.

> 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.

If the complexity exceeds the capacity of numbers, then you need to
invoke even more complexity in the form of additional forms of
expression of that complexity...out of thin air? With sense,
complexity is generated recursively from bottom up entropy, while
simplicity pulls from the top down toward unity as significance.
Evolution is the interference pattern between them.

> >>> 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.

If there is something non logical about numbers (which are really the
embodiment of pure logic), why does that truth have to be 'discovered'
by them? In our development as children, do we not discover logic out
of the chaos of infancy rather than the other way around? Do we not
learn numbers rather than learn feelings?

>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.

What kind of faith does a Turing machine have?


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