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 ofprimitive matter.Unlike the proton and neutron nobody has found any experimentalevidence that the electron has a inner structure, that it is made ofparts.

`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 ofconsciousnes without *primitive* matter,But then its odd that in the "illusion" we live our lives inconsciousness 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 aseparation between me and not me,In the "illusion" my body is always linked with my consciousness buta rock is not unless the rock interacts with my body, a very oddillusion if consciousness is more fundamental than matter, and oddthe 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 hundreddigits of Chaitin's Omega Constant?)> This one, you can know, if you are patient enough. But you willnot know it and also know that you know itTrue in a way. It's very unlikely but a random number generatorcould spit it out but it would not do you any good because you'dhave 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 decimalwill 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 needto feed all programs that can be expressed in 100 bits or less intoa Turing Machine and see how many of them stop and how many of thendo not. Some of them will never stop but the only way to know howmany is to wait a infinite number of years and then see how manyprograms 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 theresomething rather than nothing?)> OK, but the question can be reduced to "why there are naturalnumbers obeying addition and multiplication law"Lawrence Krauss in his book "A Universe From Nothing" says thatsomeday 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 muchsense 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 butif it's truly random there is no reason behind it. It doesn't makesense that X came to be, that is to say you don't understand itbecause 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.