On 24 Jun 2012, at 17:16, John Clark wrote:



On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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