On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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?

Of course not. Why would logic ever deny this?
On the contrary tangible things obeys some logic usually.

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?"

We can't. But we can derive the beliefs in logics in arithmetic.
(We can't derive arithmetic from logic alone, already).

B: "Well, you don't need much logic. In fact you don't need any logic. All you really need is logic."

You need logic and arithmetic. Technically it can be shown that you don't need so much logic (equality axioms are almost enough). The arithmetic (or equivalent) part is more important. It is a technical detail.

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.

Logic is defined by the minimum we assume like

we will say that "p & q" is true, when p is true and q is true, and only then. We will accept that if we assume p and if we assume (p->q), then we cab derive q from those assumption.
Logicians and computer scientist studies those kind of relations between proposition. It is a branch of math, and it is not necessarily related to foundations.

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?

If you believe some axioms is missing, you can add it.
If an axiom does not please to you, you can propose another theory.

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?

In comp we explains that mechanics with elementary arithmetic, universal numbers, etc.

We start from what we agree on, since high school.

It is not more circular than a brain scientist using his brain.

The details of the propositions are not interesting to me, rather it is the ontology of proposition itself. What is it?

That is a very interesting question, but out of topic. Logician model often proposition by the set of worlds where those proposition are true, and they often defined world by the set of propositions true in that world, making eventually a proposition a set of set of worlds, and a world a set of set of worlds, and there are interesting "galois like" connection, meaning interesting mathematics.
It is an entire field of subject.

With comp we don't need to go that far yet, although it is clearly on the horizon.

Who proposes?

Again, that is an interesting question too. here comp can answer, in the 3p view, a number relatively to a bunch of numbers.

How do they do it exactly?

By using their relations with each others. You need to study some books, or follow my explanations on FOAR.

That is the only magic that consciousness contains.

You make some jump here.

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?

Comp explains why we cannot completely explain the sense, and this is rather nice as it prevents reductionist theories of sense.

On the contrary, by being open to sense in machine, comp is rather open in matter of others consciousness.

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.

You are right on this. Even with comp.
With comp sense supervene on logic and arithmetic though, in a testable way as we get also physics.

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.

It is unclear. Logic plays different role at many levels, and so do algebra, statistics, arithmetic, computer science.

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,

As a beginning it is fuzzy and assumes a priori much more. I do agree on the importance of the concept of heat, we might all be some sort of steam engine, but this is more a matter of implementation.

we need to start studying what is the 'we' that presses the pedal also. More funding for interdisciplinary science as well as fundamental.

I agree.

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.

I just show that if comp is correct, then it is enough, and adding assumptions is cheating with respect to both mind and matter (and their relation).

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.

No. I'm just afraid you get some bad math teachers. Or you are unable to understand that reductionism is provably dead about numbers and machines already. You are the one who put the cold in some place.

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.

The sensory realism is 1p, and non communicable, and complex to describe (you poetry, novel, movies, music, etc.), so we can't build on it. But it is not because we build on 3p things, that we stop to ascribe consciousness to them, and indeed comp ascribe consciousness to a much vaster set of entities than any form of non comp.

You just illustrate your reductionist conception of number and machine.

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.

I never use the word logic. I use arithmetic which is infinitely richer and stronger. Logic is just a very good tool, like algebra. I assume comp, so it is normal that computer science plays some role, and many logics are related to computer science.

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.

Not at all. Comp reformulate the problem into justifying what we live in from arithmetic with the internal views. If this don't match we abandon comp. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine emulable, at some level.

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.

Don't confuse a tool and what humans do with it.

The universe which comp describes should be one of florid plasticity and constant exploration,

I agree!

not struggle and frustration. How does a computer get frustrated? Why would it?

When he explores and got punished, when authoritative arguments abound, when the elders fear too much and the youth not enough. The universal machine get frustrated when her universal inspiration is constrained by the contingencies, despite they brought him here also. That's life. But we can suggest better way, and listening to the others is a good heuristic, and when the other looks quite different, like with machine, we might learn something.





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 .


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to