Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/10/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 14:36:40
Subject: Re: 15 22 4
On 09 Nov 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Arithmetic is just numbers.
Not at all. you need laws so that numbers can enter in relation with
each other.
The relation x < y, for example is Ez(x + z = y)
The relation x divides y, for another example is Ez(x* z = y)
So you need + and *, and you need axioms to relate the laws, like
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x *0 = 0
x*(y + 1) = x*y + x
And by G del this will capture a tiny part of the arithmetical
truth, but by Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich (70 years of work
by quite talentuopus logician) that theory can (at least now) easily
be shown Turing universal.
They have no meaning
and are (3p) unless observed from a fixed identity (1p).
Yes. But their relations can be such that some 1p emerge. That
follows either by comp, or by the usual definition of knowledge +
the incompleteness theorem (see my papers, but of course this needs
some math and computer science to study)
As proof of that consider these three arithmetic characters from
mandarin:
??
???
?
The meanings of these are
15
22
4
But you have to makes sense of the characters before you use them.
Absolutely. Chinese baby will learn that ? is the number of digits
handing the human arm.
In other words, you need a fixed, conscious observer.
Here you made a jump. I agree with you though, but "technically"
this might need elaboration.
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/9/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 11:00:12
Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust
On 08 Nov 2012, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and
distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine
structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should
form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into
itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief-
Indra's Pearls.
If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like
consciousness.
However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go
from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says
C emerges naturally from comp.
More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from
elementary
arithmetic, *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that the brain
or the
body can be Turing emulated at some right level so that you would
remain
conscious.
Bruno
And of course what I am hoping as a physicist rather than a
mathematician or logician is that the compact manifolds may be the
basis of the elementary arithmetic from which spacetime, matter (ie.,
strings) and consciousness emerge.
Is it not more elegant if we can derived the strings (which are
rather sophisticated mathematical object) from arithmetic (through
computationalism)?
It seems to me that string theory assumes or presumes arithmetic.
Indeed it even assumes that the "sum" (in some sense, 'course) of
all natural numbers gives -1/12. In fact all theories assume the
arithmetical "platonia", except some part of non Turing universal
algebraic structures.
However, I do not understand what
it means "to bet on comp".
You bet on comp when you bet that that you can survive with a
digital brain (a computer) replacing the brain.
Comp is just Descartes Mechanism, after the discovery of the
universal machine. The biggest discovery that nature do and redo all
the times.
Does the whole shebang collapse if brains
do not exist?
No.
But brains cannot not exist, as they exist, in some sense, already
in arithmetic. The whole shebang is a sharable dream. I call the
computer universal number to help people to keep their arithmetical
existence in mind.
I will say more in FOAR asap. You can find my papers on that subject
from my URL, but don't hesitate to ask any question, even on
references. The simplest, concise, yet complete (with the
references!) paper is this one:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
Simply state, what I say is that consciousness *and* matter
(physics) is in your head, a bit like the mystics. But then I show a
constructive version of that statement allowing any Universal
machine to derived physics by looking inward, and then we can
compare the comp-physics (the physics in the head of the universal
Turing machine) with empirical physics, so that we can test comp.
Bruno
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen P. King
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust
To: [email protected]
On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Time and space don't exist as substances so
they don't influence the monads, which as you say
are eternal. Further, there is no "substance space".
So the monads are not organized in any way.
The monads can be thought of as a collection
of an infinite number of mathematical points.
From dust we come and to dust we shall return.
Hi Roger,
The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a
'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean
algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other
monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that
the classical universe is "atoms in a void" as taught by Democritus.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html
What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The
evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow
of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean
algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous
states. These two arrows face in opposite directions
... A => A' Stone space
| |
....A*<=A*' Boolean algebra
The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.
Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/8/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the
views of all of the other monads in order to see
the whole, not from just one perspective.
Hi Roger,
Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't agree
with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that
their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a
special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created
nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the
co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to
be an
eternal action and not a special one time action.
Roger Clough, [email protected]
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
Subject: Re: Communicability
On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
actual woman ?
Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates
for actual gold coins ?
Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?
It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers.
What
matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually
confirm what is "real". Why do you imagine that only humans can be
observers?
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
--
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.
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.
--
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
.
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
.
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
.
