On 6/19/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Jun 2012, at 08:01, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 6/18/2012 5:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent, Stephen,


On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:55, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 6/18/2012 11:51 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Because consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced a separation between me and not me, and the "not me" below my substitution level get stable and persistent by the statistical interference between the infinitely many computations leading to my first person actual state.

How does on computation interfere with another? and how does that define a conscious stream of thought that is subjective agreement with other streams of thought?

Brent



They interfere statistically by the first person indeterminacy on UD* (or arithmetic).

Hi Bruno,

You seem to have an exact metric for this "measure" of "the first person indeterminacy on UD* (or arithmetic)".

Not at all. I only reduce the mind-body problem (including the body problem) into the problem of finding that metric. UDA must be seen as a proof of existence of that "metric" from the comp hypothesis. Then AUDA gives the logic of observable which is a step toward that metric isolation.

Dear Bruno,

What I fail to understand is how the currently well known and existing proofs of the non-existence of generic metrics on infinite sets that are, AFAIK, identical to your concept of computations (as strings of numbers) do not seem to impress you at all. It is as if your are willfully blind to evidence that contradicts your claims. I am sympathetic to your motivation and am interested in finding a path around this serious problem that I see in your reasoning. My point here is that this claim that "UDA must be seen as a proof of existence of that "metric" from the comp hypothesis" has no epistemological "weight" if it cannot be associated with the other aspects of mathematics. One must show how one's new idea/discovery of mathematical "objects/relations" are related to the wider universe of mathematical objects and relations; or one is risking the path of solipsism. I have tried to get your attention to look at various possibilities, such as the axiom of choice, non-well founded sets, the Tennenbaum theorem, etc. as possible hints to a path to the solution but you seem to be trapped in a thought, like light orbiting a black hole, endlessly repeating the same idea over and over. Would you snap out of it and see what I am trying to explain to you?





What I need to understand is the reasoning behind your choice of set theory and arithmetic axioms;

I don't use set theory. Only elementary arithmetic. At the ontological level.

But Bruno, you are being disingenuous here. The phrase "only elementary arithmetic" is not all that is involved! in order to have a meaningful description of "only elementary arithmetic" one has to relate to a wider univerce of concepts and one must connect to the physical acts that support the experience of what numbers are.

At the meta-level I use all the math I need, like any scientist in any part of science.


    I am not sure what that means.



after all there are many mutually-exclusive and yet self-consistent choices that can be made. Do you see a 1p feature that would allow you to known that preference is not biased?

As I said, I use arithmetic because natiural numbers are taught in high school, but any (Turing) universal will do.

Do you understand the idea that "natural numbers [as] ... taught in high school" does not have special ontological status? I am trying to get you to think of numbers in a wider context.

the point is that neither the laws of consciousness, nor the laws of matter depend on the choice of the basic initial system, so I use the one that everybody knows.

So, does a consensus of belief grant special ontological status? What else am I to think of the implication of the phrase "... that everybody knows". Closed sets of communications are (representationally) studied in network, game and graph theory. From what I have read, finite versions of these reach equilibrium in at least log_2 N steps and once there never change again. This only illustrates the point that we have to consider open systems and those are such that they do not allow for exact closed form descriptions in math. This is a well known fact to any competent engineer.

Sometimes I use the combinators or the lambda algebra. I don't use geometrical or physical system because that would be both a treachery, in our setting, and it would also be confusing for the complete derivation of the physical laws.

    Nice excuse! LOL!





And it remains to be seen if that defines a conscious stream of thought that is subjective agreement with other streams of thought.

If it does not have "subjective argeement" with other mutually exclusive then there would be a big problem. No?

No. It would be a refutation of comp+classical theory of knowledge (by UDA). That would be a formidable result. But the evidences available now, is that the physics derived from arithmetic, through comp+ usual definition of knowledge, is similar to the empirical physics (AUDA).

Exactly what does this mean? You keep repeating these words... How about finding a new set of words that has the same meaning? Truths are independent of particular representations!






Do you realize that you are asking Bruno the same question here that I have been asking him for a long time now? Exactly how do computations have any form of causal efficacy upon each other within an immaterialist scheme?

By the embedding of a large part of the constructive computer science in arithmetic.

    What "part" is not embedded?

The non elementary, second order, or analytical part. It is not embedded in the number relations, but it appears in the mind of the universal numbers as tool to accelerate the self-study. It is epistemological.

So exactly how are numbers embedded themselves such that this second order aspect can have some measure of the logical analogue of causal efficasy (aka significance)? You are not avoiding the "other minds" problem here! One has to explain how minds can have any influence or even synchrony with each other. Even Leibniz recognized this and postulated a "pre-established harmony" to account for it. It was a good try, but ultimately it failed for the simple reason that such a "pre-established harmony" is equivalent to the solution to an infinite NP-Complete computational problem. You simply cannot ignore the implications of computational complexity!




There is a universal diophantine polynomial (I will say more on this on the FOAR list soon). Once you have a universal system, you get them all (with CT). I might identify a notion of cause with the notion of universal (or not) machine. Some existing number relation implements all the possible relations between all possible universal machine.

Universality (of computations) requires the existence of an equivalence class (modulo diffeomorphisms) of physical systems over which that computation is functionally equivalent. No?

?

Do I underestimate your ability to understand the English language? Do we need to go through the discussion of universality again? Really? OK, I will try to step though my reasoning slowly for you.


What does computational universality means if not some form of functional equivalence between a large (possibly infinite) set of physical systems? When we study General Relativity we discover something known as the "Hole Argument <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/>". It ultimately shows the notion of "*Leibniz Equivalence*. If two distributions of fields are related by a smooth transformation, then they represent the same physical systems." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/Leibniz_Equivalence.html)

I am assuming that the readers can understand that "sets of physical systems" (as considered in the notion of computational universality) are connected to representations of physical systems by "distributions of fields" for my reasoning to be clear here. Perhaps I have not explained this and made the mistake of just assuming that it is understood that in physics we use mathematical objects to *represent* the physical objects of experience. It is how *representation* works that we seem to have differences in opinion.

How much more do I need to explain? You claim that universality is completely separable from physical systems. I disagree.




If not, how is universality defined? Over a purely abstract set? What defines the axioms for that set?

You don't need set. You can define "universal" in arithmetic. I am starting an explanation of this on the FOAR list.

    OK, I will continue to pay attention to your posts. :-)




You have to study the detail of Gödel's proof, or study Kleene's predicate, which translate computer science in arithmetic. For the non materialist, the problem is not to get interactions, the problem is not having too much of them.

Correct! You get an infinite regress of "interactions"! Way too many! In fact, I bet that you get at least a aleph_1 cardinal infinity. But what about the continuum hypothesis? Do you take it as true or false in your sets?

I don't care at all.

That is why I see your thesis as ultimately a failure. You are ignoring the very thing that causes problems for your idea. You cannot just assume that some kind of number is special without justification. While it is true that a huge quantity of work has been done discovering the properties of recursively enumerable functions and integers does not by itself justify or offer a proof that they are somehow special, as Kronecker and others seem to which with their statements such as : "/God made theintegers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integers>; all else is the work of man/." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Created_the_Integers


If you take it as false then you obtain a very interesting thing in the number theory; it looks like all arithmetics are non-standard in some infinite limit! You have to have a means to necessitate a limit to finite sets. The requirement of Boolean satisfyability <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem>exactly gives us this "rule".

? (unclear).

Where does the existence of non-contradiction in logic obtain from? Mere or arbitrary postulation? No. It is necessary. But this necessity in the axiomatic sense that we see when we consider logic as an abstract entity does not transfer into or onto actual sets of propositions such as those that would accurately represent physical systems interacting with each other in our worlds of experience.





Keep in mind I submit a problem, for the computationalist. Not a solution., but precise problems. You can use the arithmetical quantization to test test the quantum tautologies.

We will see if there is or not some winning topological quantum computer on the border of numberland, as seen from inside all computations.

    What physical experiment will measure this effect?

Well, here the physical events is the discovery of quantum computations in nature. That is what remain to be seen in the arithmetical physics. But we have already the quantization and a quantum logic.

Have you tried this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=quantum+computation++photosynthesis&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C41&as_vis=1

But how does the implementation of quantum computation in "natural" (as opposed to "man-made) systems prove your idea? So far I have shown you that there exists proofs that one cannot extract quantum logics from classical logics without serious moduli. On the other hand, we can extract plenums of classical (Boolean) logical algebras from a single quantum logical lattice (modulo sufficient dimensions). Why are you so eager to extract quantum from the classical?




If there is no physical effect correlated with the difference, then this idea is literally a figment of someone's imagination and nothing more. The physical implementation of a quantum computer is a physical event. I thought that your idea that computations are independent of all physicality was completely and causally independent from such. =-O

My argument is that a computational simulation is nothing more than "vaporware" (a figment of someone's imagination) until and unless there exists a plenum of physical systems that all can implement the "best possible version" of that simulation.

Arithmetic implements all computations already. And UDA explain that the physical emerges from that, and evidence are that the comp arithmetical physics can implement the quantum computations. They are just not primitive.

Your use of the word "Implements" is nonsensical. Any concept of implementation that is completely divorced from physical actions is nonsense as it cannot imply things that it is unable to by its definition.




When we recall that Wolfram defines the "real thing" as the "best possible simulation, we reach a conclusion. This "plenum" is the trace or action (???I am not sure???) of (on?) an equivalence class of spaces that are diffeomorphic to each *other under some ordering*. I am not certain of the wording of the first part of this, but I am absolutely certain of the latter part, "an equivalence class of spaces that are diffeomorphic to each *other under some ordering*" I am unassailably certain of.

Wolfralm is unaware of consciousness and first person indeterminacy.

So? We could equally claim that you do not understand the role of complexity in computations and thus be dismissive of your ideas, but we chose not to.


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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