On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> This is debatable. nobody has found, nor can found, example of primitive matter.

Unlike the proton and neutron nobody has found any experimental evidence that the electron has a inner structure, that it is made of parts.


The primitive matter I talk about is the idea of primary matter in the Aristotle sense (simplified). If I say that electron is not primitive, I don't mean it is made of part, almost the contrary, that it is a mathematical reality, or that it is reducible to a non physical mathematical or theological reality, an invariant in our sharable computations.




> Now, it is easy, when assuming comp, to have example of consciousnes without *primitive* matter,

But then its odd that in the "illusion" we live our lives in consciousness is ALWAYS linked with matter.

In REM sleep, the night, clearly consciousness is related to appearance of matter, and the day, we can agree on stable patterns, apparantly consistent pattern. The physicist measure numbers, infer relations, extrapolate, and publish about those relations of numbers. That consciousness is always related to matter can be explained through evolution, and long computation (and the derivation of physics from arithmetic). The point is not the non existence of matter, but of primitive (not "atomic", but conceptually irreducible) matter.




> consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced a separation between me and not me,

In the "illusion" my body is always linked with my consciousness but a rock is not unless the rock interacts with my body, a very odd illusion if consciousness is more fundamental than matter, and odd the illusion is so persistent and universal.

Yes, but it is odd in a sufficiently precise way as to make comp testable. That's the point. The physics appears already rather weird, but is it more weird than QM? Oddness, weirdness is subjective and cultural.




>> 3) I dunno and will never know. (What are the first hundred digits of Chaitin's Omega Constant?)

> This one, you can know, if you are patient enough. But you will not know it and also know that you know it

True in a way. It's very unlikely but a random number generator could spit it out but it would not do you any good because you'd have no way of knowing it is Chaitin's Omega Constant.

I can run all programs and wait. This will give me all correct decimal in the limit, but I will never be sure on almost all decimals.




> Chaitin's constant can be computed *in the limit*. Its decimal will stabilize, you just don't know when.

It can't be computed in a finite number of years.

Each initial segment can. But not in an ascertainable way.



To calculate the first 100 digits of Chaitin's constant you'd need to feed all programs that can be expressed in 100 bits or less into a Turing Machine and see how many of them stop and how many of then do not. Some of them will never stop but the only way to know how many is to wait a infinite number of years and then see how many programs are still running. So you'd need to be infinitely patient, in other words you'd need to be dead.

Only to be sure of the decimals obtained. If I relax that constraints, then I need only to be *very patient*. The non computable, but well defined Buzzy Beaver function (BB) bounds the time needed to wait. Of course it grows *very* fast. But I don't need an *infinite* time to get the 100 first digits correct. Any time bigger than BB(100) will do.




>> Although meaningful the question has no answer. (Why is there something rather than nothing?)

> OK, but the question can be reduced to "why there are natural numbers obeying addition and multiplication law"

Lawrence Krauss in his book "A Universe From Nothing" says that someday something close to that might actually be possible.

You mean? Deriving addition and multiplication from physics? That is impossible. You can't derive them from anything which does not postulate them implicitly. Physics already assume + and * (or R and trigonometric functions, which are a way to (re)define the integers in analysis, by sin(2*PI*x) = 0; for example).




> A physical event without a cause or a reason does not make much sense to me (and makes no sense with comp).

Of course it doesn't make sense, it's in the nature of the beast.

So we agree on this. It is gibberish.



If it made sense that would mean you knew the reason behind it but if it's truly random there is no reason behind it. It doesn't make sense that X came to be, that is to say you don't understand it because there is nothing to understand, X came to be for no reason.

Here it looks like it makes sense, after all. Why do you use "gibberish" to condemn free will, and not to condemn event without cause?

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.

Reply via email to