On 30 Jun 2012, at 18:44, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

## Advertising

On 30.06.2012 11:14 Bruno Marchal said the following:On 29 Jun 2012, at 20:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:On 11.04.2012 11:11 Bruno Marchal said the following:On 10 Apr 2012, at 21:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:...Hence if you know something in Internet or in the written form, I would appreciate your advice. The best about 20 pages, not too little, and not to much.OK I found the paper by Turing: http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/turing_oncomputablenumbers_1936.pdf Of course, the language is old, and we prefer to talk today in term of functions instead of real numbers. You can try to read it. I will search other information, but there are many, and of different type, and most still blinded by the aristotelian preconception. So it is hard to find a paper which would satisfy me. But you can get the intuition with Turing's paper I think.Bruno, I have finally come to mechanism. Thank you for your suggestion. I have browsed Turing's paper. Do I understand correctly, that mechanism is something that could be implemented by some Turing's machine?You can say that. But you could take "fortran program" instead of Turing machine. The choice of the initial formal system is not important.I think that you have mentioned that mechanism is incompatible withmaterialism. How this follows then?

`Because concerning computation and emulation (exact simulation) all`

`universal system are equivalent.`

`Turing machine and Fortran programs are completely equivalent, you can`

`emulate any Turing machine by a fortran program, and you can emulate`

`any fortran program by a Turing machine.`

`More, you can write a fortran program emulating a universal Turing`

`machine, and you can find a Turing machine running a Fortran universal`

`interpreter (or compiler). This means that not only those system`

`compute the same functions from N to N, but also that they can compute`

`those function in the same manner of the other machine.`

`Now, it happens that a tiny part of arithmetic is already Turing`

`universal, and thus fortran universal, lisp universal, etc. So the`

`arithmetical relations emulates already all computations, in Fortran,`

`in Lisp, in all conceivable universal system (with Church thesis).`

`If you take the first person indeterminacy into account, and if you`

`see that we cannot have both that consciousness supervenes on physical`

`activity and that consciousness supervene on computations, you can`

`see, with some work, that the laws of physics have to emerge from`

`self-referential modalities put on the computations, and that this`

`does not depend on the choice of the initial system. I use arithmetic`

`only for illustrative purpose, and because it is easier to be realist`

`on an arithmetical relations than on fortran programs, by lack of`

`familiarity.`

`I hope this answer your question. The sequel and explicit derivation`

`of measureble values is based on work by GĂ¶del and Kleene, and`

`others. I am using computer science to translate precisely the mind`

`body problem, in the computationalist theory, into a mathematical`

`problem of justifying physics by a statistics on dreams (computation`

`as seen through a modality of self-reference). It extends the many-`

`worlds of QM to a many-"dreams" in Arithmetic, in a sufficiently`

`precise way as to be tested.`

`I explain this in the sane04 paper. The main point, UDA, needs only a`

`small amount of passive understanding of Church thesis and the basic`

`of computer science. The explicit translation in the arithmetic (the`

`part 2 of sane04) needs much more.`

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

`This provides also an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus and many`

`mystics' talks.`

Bruno

EvgeniiDo you some paper about it that does not have equations but that discusses this term philosophically?Hmm... Not really. The start is simple, but without doing a minimum of technical work, you can't get the correct intuition, for the field is quickly counter-intuitive. I am currently explaining the whole computability stuff on the FOAR list, where I have a very good "candid" correspondent. You might try take the wagon. If not I would suggest you to study a good book, like Cutland's book, or even the first hundred pages of the Rogers' book. Many popular account on computability are just invalid, or not precise enough to do serious philosophy, I'm afraid. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

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.