On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 22 Nov 2012, at 18:38, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> >> >> >> How exactly does the comparison occur? >> >> >> By comparing the logic of the observable inferred from observation (the >> quantum logic based on the algebra of the observable/linear positive >> operators) and the logic obtained from the arithmetical quantization, which >> exists already. >> >> >> >> How does the comparison occur? I will not ask what or who is >> involved, only how. What means exists to compare and contrast a pair of >> logics? >> >> >> >> The logic exists, because, by UDA, when translated in arithmetic, makes a >> relative physical certainty into a true Sigma_1 sentence, which has to be >> provable, and consistent. So the observability with measure one is given by >> []p = Bp & Dt & p, with p arithmetical sigma_1 (this is coherent with the >> way the physical reality has to be redefined through UDA). Then the quantum >> logic is given by the quantization []<>p, thanks to the law p -> []<>p, and >> this makes possible to reverse the Goldblatt modal translation of quantum >> logic into arithmetic. >> Comparison is used in the everyday sense. Just look if we get the quantum >> propositions, new one, different one, etc. >> > > > The question is straightforward to me - what makes logical comparison > happen? Let me try to tease out what you answer is here, because it is not > obvious. > > The logic exists, because, > > so far so good. > > by UDA, > > Isn't UDA a logical construct already? > > > UDA refers to an argument. It is the argument showing that if we are > machine (even physical machine) then in fine physics has to be justified by > the arithmetical relations, and some internal views related to it. >

Isn't an argument a logical construct though? I can't argue a piece of iron into being magnetized. There has to be a plausible interface between pure logic and anything tangible, doesn't there? It doesn't have to be matter, even subjective experience is not conjured by logic alone. Can we use logic to alone to deny that we see what we see or feel what we feel? > > > > Is your answer to 'what makes logic happen?' rooted in the presumption of > logic? > > > At the basic ontological level, I can limit the assumption in logic quite > a lot. > I'm not sure why that changes anything at all. I think it makes it even worse, because if you have a basic ontological level with very limited logical assumptions, and everything is reducible to that, then what is it that you are reducing it from? > Actually we don't need logic at the base ontological level, only simple > substitution rules and the +, * equality axioms. > Aren't rules and axioms the defining structures of logic? It sounds like this: C: "How can you justify the existence of logic with logic alone?" B: "Well, you don't need much logic. In fact you don't need any logic. All you really need is logic." > Only later we candefine an observer, in that ontology, as a machine/number > having bigger set of logical beliefs. But the existence of such machine > does not require the belief or assumptions in that logic. > I'm not even bringing observers into it. I'm not talking about awareness of participants, I'm talking about the emergence of the possibility of logic at all. > > > That's ok with me, but you don't need any smoke or mirrors after that, you > are pretty much committed to 'because maths' as the alpha and omega answer > to all possible questions. > > > On the contrary. The math is used to be precise, and then to realize that > we don't have the answers at all, but we do have tools to make the > questions clearer, and sometimes this can give already some shape of the > answer, like seeing that comp bactracks to Plato's conception of reality > (even Pythagorus). > This is not much. Just a remind that science has not decided between Plato > and Aristotle in theology. > How do we know that we aren't making the questions clearer by amputating everything that doesn't fit our axioms? > > > > when translated in arithmetic, makes a relative physical certainty into a > true Sigma_1 sentence, which has to be provable, and consistent. > > Proof and consistency, again, are already features of logic. What makes > things true? How does it actually happen? > > > We assume some notion of arithmetical truth. I hope you can agree with > proposition like "44 is a prime number or 44 is not a prime number". > What are the mechanics of that assumption though? The details of the propositions are not interesting to me, rather it is the ontology of proposition itself. What is it? Who proposes? How do they do it exactly? That is the only magic that consciousness contains. Beyond that, it's just mind-numbing patterns playing themselves out forever. Participation is everything and no amount of interrogating functions can conceivably synthesize that from logic. Logic does not participate, it constrains and guides that which is participating as an inert codex of blind axioms. > Not much is assumed, except for UDA, where you are asked if you are > willing to accept a computer in place of your brain. The computer is > supposed to be reconfigured at some level of course. We assume also Church > thesis, although it is easy to avoid it, technically (but not so much > "philosophically"). > Church thesis is similarly reflexive logic. There is no reason to presume that because anything that can be put into a Boolean box has other logical commonalities that this (unquestionably important and worthwhile) commonality extends to causally efficacious presence. An air conditioner doesn't create air. Church assumes the air of sense making from the start and then shows how all manner of air conditioners can be assembled from the same fundamental blueprint. I'm not falling for it though. It's a sleight of hand maneuver. While functionalism does card tricks with logic, the power and reality of sense supplies the table, tablecloth, stage, lights, audience, and girl to saw in half. Yes, I see, you pulled my card, King of Diamonds, very impressive - truly, but how does it taste like chocolate and dance Gangnam style? > > > > So the observability with measure one is given by []p = Bp & Dt & p, with > p arithmetical sigma_1 (this is coherent with the way the physical reality > has to be redefined through UDA). Then the quantum logic is given by the > quantization []<>p, thanks to the law p -> []<>p, and this makes possible > to reverse the Goldblatt modal translation of quantum logic into > arithmetic. > > > Way over my head, but it sounds like logic proving logic again. > > > It is not your fault. Nobody knows logic, except the professional > logicians, who are not really aware of this. > > > I talk about logic, the branch of math, not logic the adjective for all > simple rational behavior that we all know. UDA does not use > logic-branch-math, but of course it use the logic that you are necessarily > using when sending a post to a list (implicitly). > AUDA needs logic-the branch of math, due to the link between computer > science and mathematical logic. > That's reasonable to me, but what I'm talking about is getting behind the curtain of 'simple rational behavior that we all know', and what I find is not a Platonic monoilith of idealism, but the ordinary experience of discernment and participation. Logic supervenes on sense, but sense does not supervene on logic. Dreams prove that we are perfectly content to enjoy a universe without logical consistency, but there is not any proof that I know of which suggests that logic relies on qualia or matter. Therefore, it seems to me that logic must either be a psychic phenomenon and therefore not primitive, or that psychic phenomena is illogical and the universe which we think we live in is impossible. I don't think the latter is plausible because it would undermine our ability to have any kind of meaningful opinion about anything real if that were the case. > > > Comparison is used in the everyday sense. > > Yes! Now that I understand. What's wrong with the 'everyday sense' being > the reality > > > That would cut all the funding in fundamental sciences, as this answer > everything. It is a bit like "why do you waste your time trying to > understanding the thermo-kinetics of car motor and how car moves? Why not > just accept that car moves when we press on the pedal?" > I think just the opposite. My view says that thermo-kinetics is just the beginning, we need to start studying what is the 'we' that presses the pedal also. More funding for interdisciplinary science as well as fundamental. > > The everyday sense is a part of reality, and I would understand it in term > of the simplest assumption possible. Then my point is only that if comp is > true (that is, roughly, if we are machine) then we can already refute the > lasting current idea that there is a primitive physical universe. It gives > at least another rational conception of reality, which gives the hope to > get the origin of the physical laws, and the material patterns. > I don't see the advantage of a reality which is primitively arithmetic or primitively physical. Either way we are depersonalized and our lives are de-presented while subterranean abstractions crank out automatism with ourselves as vestigial deluded spectators, powerless in our inauthentic simulated worlds. If instead we look at what we are looking at, and see realism for the sensory experience that it is, then arithmetic truth and Hermetic arts fall out of it organically. Algebra and geometry coexist to serve an experiential, theatrical agenda, not a functional one. > > > > > and the specialized logic being one category of specialized mechanisms > within that? > > > Logic is not fundamental at all, for UDA, you need only the everyday logic > that you need to be able to do a pizza. Arithmetic is far more important, > if only to understand how a computer functions. > Haha, you're still telling me that a little bit of shit in the tuna salad doesn't count. If it tastes like logic, then I don't think you can use it to prop up a primitive that supervenes on logic. > > Yet more advanced logic can help for two things, when doing reasoning: > > -showing that a proposition follows from other propositions (deduction) > -showing that a proposition does not follow from other propositions > (independence). > > Then, concerning the relation between mind, thinking, feeling, truth, etc. > many result in logic put some light, and that is not astonishing once you > bet on comp, even if temporarily for the sake of the argument. > > In logic, the branch of math, the beginning is the most difficult, because > you have to understand what you have to not understand, like formal > expressions. > > Logic is just like algebra, and those things imposes themselves once we > tackle precise theories, and relations between theories. It helps for > refuting them, or representing a theory in another, etc. > > I know that comp invites to math, and that this seems to be a problem for > many. > To me the problem with comp is that it perfectly describes a universe that we don't actually live in. In theory a formula could move my arm, because my arm could, in theory, be nothing but data, but in fact, that isn't what we see. Most of our lives are struggles for mathematically irrelevant resources - time, money, sex, more money, more sex, etc. They aren't arithmetically interesting problems. The universe which comp describes should be one of florid plasticity and constant exploration, not struggle and frustration. How does a computer get frustrated? Why would it? Craig > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/xG_bmgeevgQJ. 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.