On 24 Jun 2012, at 17:16, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> You don't think the electron is primitive, so show me how to
derive its mass, spin, and electrical charge from something simpler.
> We must first derive its existence/appearance.
But that was exactly what I asked you to do! If you tell me what the
mass, spin and electrical charge of electrons are you've told me
just about all there is to say about the existence/appearance of
electrons. So if you don't think electrons are primitive you must be
able to derive them from something simpler. What is that derivation?
What I try to explain is NOT a derivation of physics from arithmetic.
But a proof of its existence and necessity in all theories consistent
with the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science.
You confuse somehow ( "===>" for derivation)
COMP ===> PHYSICS
and
COMP -> necessary(COMP ===> PHYSICS).
Yet, the reasoning is enough constructive to show how to do the
derivation, and in particular, accepting the most common analytical
definition of belief and knowledge, to derive the logic of the
observable, which can already be compared to the logic inferred from
observation. Up to now it fits.
How to do the derivation is what I have begun to describe on FOAR
(starting from zero).
> Most plausibly electrons and particles arise from universal group
symmetries, and formally braiding operators should appears in the
semantics of some of those hypostases.
Well that all sounds real nice, real scholarly, but the trouble is
there is no reason for me to think you're right until your theory
can actually produce some numbers.
The theory already produces some geometries, and modalities that we
can much more easily compared to nature than using the particular
numbers, which might as well be geographical.
But that theory is not mine, it *is* the theory of all self-
referentially correct universal machine looking inward. And the main
part has been isolated through "well known" work, like Gödel, Löb,
Solovay, Matiyasevich.
The theory explains the distinction of qualia and quanta, and prevents
the universal machine from reductionist conception of the person. It
does not put consciousness under the rug, it starts from its
association with relative computational states.
We know that the mass of the electron is 9.10938291×10-31 kg, we
know this from experiment, so show me how to derive this number from
something simpler and I will concede that there is something to your
theory after all.
I have explained the necessity (the main result, UDA) in FOAR. here I
have made an attempt, but you remained stuck on step 3.
>You have to be sure to grasp the first person indeterminacy
Show me how to calculate the number 9.10938291×10-31 from "first
person indeterminacy" and I will be sure that "first person
indeterminacy" is something that is worth grasping.
You might just not be interested in comp and its consequence.
The first person indeterminacy is a fact, with respect to comp. It is
a logical consequence of comp (and of much of its many possible
weakening up to the simple assumption of self-duplicability).
In a sense, it is the most simple impossibility theorem in computer
science: there are no programs capable to predict what they will write
about self-localization after a backup will be splitted.
If *you* can write such a program, then I will believe first person
indeterminacy doesn't exist.
And then if I luckily succeed in computing the electron mass
9.10938291×10-31kg, Brent will tell me that we already knew that,
and ask for something else.
I am a logician. I just show that: if we can survive a digital
transplant, then the physical reality emerges from a peculiar
arithmetical process involving *many* computations, self-reference and
inductive inference, and this in a sufficiently precise way so that we
can already make some comparisons.
UDA is
COMP -> necessary(COMP ===> PHYSICS).
And AUDA is a piece of
COMP ===> PHYSICS
You just need to understand step 3, then 4, up to 8. (although 7 is
already quite well). For AUDA you need mathematical logic and
theoretical computer science.
You need also to be interested in consciousness, and capable of
distinguishing first and third person points of view (and later
logical indexical modalities).
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
