Hi Bruno Marchal 

It is known that I think Hilbert and other great mathematicians 
thought at least initially in terms of images or pictures.
That is more evidence in support of Lucas and Penrose.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/24/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-23, 14:41:13
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]




On 23 Nov 2012, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal,


I find this statement on http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mmk/papers/05-KI.html :

"....the Lucas-Penrose argument, which can be summarized as follows: 
Since G?el proved that in each sound formal system - which is strong 
enough to formulate arithmetic - there exists a formula which cannot be proved 
by the system (assumed the system is consistent), and since we (human beings) 
can see that such a formula must be true, human and machine reasoning must 
inevitably be different in nature, even in the restricted area of mathematical 
logic. 
This attributes to human mathematical reasoning a very particular role, which 
seems to go beyond rational thought. "

I can't think of an arithmetic example that LP could use, which they should 
have provided.
So as the question is posed, LP seem to be mistaken or at least incomplete 
themselves. 


G?el talk about axiomatic logical theories, or machine, theorem prover. It 
shows that for such theories or machine, we can find true statement that the 
machine or theory cannot prove.


But the reason why Penrose and Lucas is based on the fact that G?el provide an 
algorithm for finding that true but non provable proposition. So machines excel 
in finding the true proposition about other little machine, that the little 
machine cannot find.


L?ian machine can prove theorem own G?el's theorem, and develop transfinite 
autonomous self-extension in provability matter. G and G* remains correct at 
each state, and Becklemishev has found extension of G and G* formalizing the 
multimodal logic captureing the [] = [0] and the [alpha] transfinite 
provability level.


(But you need to study logic for making sense of this).











At any rate, many factual statements can obviously be true but unproveable
by a computer alone. That the sky is blue would be such a statement. 


OK. We are not "obviously" more gifted than the computer. 






Or
any piece of data not in its data bank.


No, the computer can assert much more than what is in the data bank. Much much 
more. What it deduces from it, what it induces from it, and all the hazardous 
theories, if not the lie and delusion etc. 


Look at the difference between the string "z_n := (z_(n-1))^2 +1", which is the 
data bank content, and what the universal machine says from that :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ









So I conclude that LP are correct at least for most factual statements
and they only needed one example. 




?


No LP are not correct. They can do what they pretend on simpler machine than 
themselves, and machines can do that too. But they cannot do that for 
themselves without changing themselves, and the machine can do that too. The 
machine already knows that it is a bit risky. If the truth is possible, the 
lies and errors are possible too.




Bruno










[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/23/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-21, 12:23:40
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]




On 21 Nov 2012, at 11:32, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

I'm trying to understand your paper, but a seemingly much simpler
form of your argument keeps getting in the way. The
simpler form is the Lucas argument, discussed in  great
scholarly detail on

 http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/


To be franc there is nothing new in that paper, on the contrary it fails to 
mention the work done by Webb (not to talk on mine on Lucas, Benacerraf and the 
Penrose argument).


I have counted more than 50 errors in Lucas paper. Some are uninteresting, and 
some are very interesting. The argument of Lucas and Penrose are typically 
invalid, but it can be corrected, and it leads to the proposition according to 
whioch:


If I am a machine, then I cannot know which machine I am, and this plays some 
role in the formal part of the study of the first person indeterminacy.


Lucas and Penrose assumes that they are sound, and that they know that they are 
sound, but this is already inconsistent, even if the soundness is restricted to 
arithmetic.


In Conscience & Mechanism, I show how all L?ian machines can refute Lucas and 
Penrose. Basically they confuse []p (3p beliefs) with []p & p (1p knowledge).. 







It seems to me to be self-evident that

1p cannot be part of 3p 




But that is good insight of you. For correct machine, this can be proved, as 
the machine cannot prove the true equivalence between []p and []p & p, as they 
don't know that they are correct.


[]p can be defined in the language of the universal machine, but []p and p 
cannot. By assuming correctness of some other machine, the L?ian one can prove 
that for simpler machine than themselves, and they can bet on their correctness 
and lift that idea at their own level, with the usual theological risk of this 
(forgetting the "bet" in the process).







Which seems to be a equivalent to Godels's theorm. 


OK, but invalid when used to pretend that we are not machine, like Godel and 
Lucas did.







Or the observer can't be part of what is observed.
Or more generally, the prover cannot be part of the proof.


Well, both the observer (3p) and the prover (3p) can do that, without 
necessarily knwoing that they do that. 
But the knower (1p) cannot.


To explain the details of this would need more familiarity in logic, and 
notably Solovay's theorems, which I might explain someday.


Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/21/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-20, 10:05:13
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]




On 20 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 


Sorry, where are the steps of UD ?


You can find them here:


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




You can download the PDF, and also the unique slide with a diagram for each 
step, as this can help to remember them. For the step 8, the best version is in 
this list in the MGA thread (the Movie Graph Argument). The seven first steps 
already explains the reversal physics---/---number's bio-psycho-theo-logy 
though.


Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/20/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-19, 09:33:19
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]




On 19 Nov 2012, at 11:22, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

I thought that comp is exactly opposite to what you say,
that computationalism is the belief that we can simulate
the mind with a computer program-- that the mind is computable.


Yes that is correct (if by mind you mean the 3p feature of mind, and not 
consciousness per se).


What I wrote in the quote (below) is that the physical reality is not 
completely Turing emulable, once we assume the mind is.


Comp is just the idea that I can survive with a computer at the place of the 
brain. This does NOT mean that a computer create the consciousness. It means 
only that the consciousness can only be made manifestable through relative 
bodies, but it exists only in Platonia. But then matter too, and it relies 
statistically on all computations going through my current comp states, and the 
math shows that this will include some continuous/analog observable.


I am not sure this can be understood without getting a personal understanding 
of at least the first seven step of the UD reasoning.


Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/19/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-18, 07:46:20
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]


On 17 Nov 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>>
>> More In This Article
>> * Overview
>> _Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?_
>> (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all
>>  
>> )
>>
>>
>>
>> Conventional wisdom says that quantum mechanics is a theory of
>> discreteness, describing a world of irreducible building blocks. 
>> It stands to reason
>> that computers??which process information in discrete 
>> chunks??should be able
>> to simulate nature fully, at least in principle. But it turns out 
>> that
>> certain asymmetries in particle physics cannot be discretized; 
>> they are
>> irreducibly continuous. In that case, says David Tong, author of 
>> "_Is Quantum
>> Reality Analog after All?_
>> (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all
>>  
>> ) " in the December 2012 issue of
>> Scientific American, the world can never be fully simulated on a 
>> computer.


That would be a nice confirmation of comp. As I have often insisted 
digital physics (the world can be fully be Turing emulated) violated 
the consequence of comp which makes necessary the presence of non 
computable observable, and even non enumerable spectra.

Digital physics is self-contradictory. It implies comp, but comp 
implies the negation of digital physics, so, with or without comp, 
digital physics is contradictory.

Bruno



>
> -- 
> 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 
> .
>

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.




-- 
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.



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.



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.



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.



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