On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic?

Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to come from arithmetic if comp is true and my reasoning correct.


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

On 27 Nov 2012, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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.

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.

The question though is how does that happen?

Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't know why and how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math in physics. With comp there is only math (arithmetic) and from this we can explain why numbers develop beliefs (axiomatically defined) and why they obey apparent

How do tangible things interface with logic -

I guess they would not tangible if they do not. tangibility ask for some
amount of consistency.

how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, and through what
capacity can they express that obedience?

With comp this can be derived from the laws to which the entities (actually
0, 1, 2, 3, ...) obeys.

The number tree does not need to know anything for being able to divide 6,
for example.

Is your answer to 'what makes logic happen?' rooted in the presumption of

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?


If a roast pork loin is really a string of binary instructions,

It can be that, but a string + a universal number can be decoded by a
universal numbers into the apperance of a roast pork.

then why isn't it a string of binary instructions? We do we need the pork

Worst, we cannot make sense of it in some absolute ontological sense, bu assuming comp, we can't avoid the delusion by the universal numbers about

Why do binary instructions make themselves seem like pork (or shapes or
anything other than what they actually are)?

By the decoding process, like 100011011110 can be decoded into add 0 to the content of register 1000. Of course it is more involved in the "real case"
of the "roasted pork smelly experiences".

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

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).

We can derive logic from sense though. All logic makes sense but not
everything that makes sense is logical.

You are right, even with comp. You need arithmetic above. At least, and with
UDA: at most.

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.

What does logic and arithmetic need?

Nothing, I would say.

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
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

So you are saying that logic comes from human teachings about how we can simplify the relations of ideas, not a universal primitive which is capable
of animating matter or minds by itself.


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
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.

I start from the entire universe as a single indivisible axiom and refine
focus from there.

What entire universe? What is that, where does it come from? What is the
relation with consciousness. You start from what I want to explain.

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.

I agree it is no more circular than neuroscience, but I think the current neuroscientific approach to explaining consciousness is ultimately circular too. It might be a clue that the only way that we ourselves can disengage
from circular thoughts is by using our will to consciously shift our
attention from it.

Or resolve the circularity. Computer science provides tools for doing that.

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

So comp is a proposition which has not yet proposed a theory of what a
proposition is.

Indeed. Proposition, as opposed to mere syntactical sentences, is as
mysterious as consciousness, meaning, reality, etc. We need much more
progress to handle that kind of things. But we can avoid the difficulties in comp by attaching proposition to couple "sentence" + "what a universal machine can do with the sentences". But this does not solve the riddle, but
it can help.
Keep in mind that all what I show in how complex the mind-body issue is with
comp, if only because we must change our mind on the (currently
aristotelian) physics.

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.

Why and how does a number propose (undefined non-numbers?) to numerous other

By virtue of the fact that they obeys the laws of addition and
multiplication, which enable them to have complex computational relations
with each others.

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.

What does it mean to use a relation though? It's sensory-motor metaphor.

You can't redefined all term. I use relation in the usual (mathematical
sense). A relation on a set A can be defined as a subset of AxA, for

To use is to employ something as an object for a subjective motive.

That's an higher level notion.

That is the only magic that consciousness contains.

You make some jump here.

Yes, it's only an editorial comment.


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

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.

I don't see that explains the sense at all though. It explains how to use a certain kind of sense in a very powerful and extensible way, but it doesn't
get to the hard problem.

Indeed, comp does not solve it per se. You need the G/G* incompleteness to
approach the explanation, which can be shown to be necessarily

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.

Comp bases that supervenience on its own amputated axioms though.

Comp is the bet that we are machine (roughly speaking). This amputates nothing, unless you amputate machines from thinking, consciousness, but then
it is your theory which amputates certain person.

It says, 'whatever fits in this box also fits in every other box that is the
same size'. It disqualifies everything out of its own box though.

As a consequence we lost primitive matter, but then nobody has ever shown even one evidence for the existence of primitive matter, beyond the natural
extrapolation of what we see (which proves nothing for the ontology).

It has no theory of where logic and arithmetic emerge,

We need to start from simple truth on which you can agree. If you doubt that 43 is prime, then I can explain nothing, indeed. But you seem to start from the entire universe, and sense, which nobody can really agree on. It is only recent that scientists approach the notion of sense, and the notion of
physical universe is controversial.

while it is clear to me that they emerge from sense.

You are lucky.

Counting is the intellectual act of making sense of a quantity

OK, but how will you define quantity, then?

- of naming experiences as an abstract collection.

From what, on what?

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.

It isn't clear that logic is the cause. To the contrary, I think it has to
be an effect.

No problem with this. I am a bit neutral on this issue.

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

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

Then I don't see the advantage of a reality which is comp or materialist.

If you search advantages, then you let your mind open to wishful thinking, which is not a truth friendly attitude, even if the Löb formula seems to give a sort of role to a form of arithmetical placebo (see sane04 part 2).

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.

It's hidden right in your words. "I'm just afraid you get some bad math teachers" is admission that the beauty and warmth of mathematics requires
seeing them with the right eyes.

Yes, OK.

It's your sense of numbers which is wonderful - your sensitivity to them,
not the numbers themselves.

That is debatable. I have learn to appreciate the numbers because some people found amazing relations, and succeed in convincing me, and everyone
taking the time to do the work,  about the truth of those relations.

They are just unconscious, automatic fragments of mirror which will refelect
whatever light is present.


If your reason is particularly illuminating in the mathematical- logical band of sense, then it's like lighting up a fluorescent disco with a black light. If I go in there with only my FM radio to listen to, I don't hear much of


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.

Machine and number I think are as vast a universe as 1p experience, but in the impersonal 3p mode. From my view, it is functionalism which overstates 3p assumptions and compulsively assigns them to 1p, mainly out of a fear of
personal realism.

It assigns 1p to them, yes. Strong AI too. It is part of the assumption. The opposite assumption treats them as zombie. In case of doubt I think the
attribution of consciousness to zombie is less damageable.

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.

Isn't arithmetic a kind of logic though?

Not really. (of course with "kind of" you might say that everything is a
kind of something).

Doesn't counting and addition require that an output is guided by logical
transformations on an input?

Not purely logical. It needs to assume some stuff, like 0 is a number, and that is not logical. The early 20th century logicians have tried to deduce "0 is a number" from logic, but they failed, and eventually we understand now what it has to fail (failure of logicism, discovery of the importance of
intuition in math).

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

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

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

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

That assumption makes it so that all internal views are modeled in a way which automatically justifies them to comp. It is the yellow glasses that
prove that everything is yellow.

All theories are such glasses. You statement attacks science, not just the comp assumption. It criticize the act of doing assumption, it seems to me. Of course we can stop science and enjoy the view, and that can be a good
philosophy of life, but it is not what scientists do.

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.

Why not? What is a tool for humans other than some implement with which
humans do things?

So human can be guilty, not the tools. Guns are pacific, when human let them
sleep in the closet.

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,

I think that is an anthropomorphic projection. Is there any mathematical
evidence which shows outcomes effected by punishment?

As much as with human, by definition as humans are machine, by the comp

Not talking about disadvantageous game conditions, but actual cruelty and intention to cause hurt feelings. Do computers care if you punish them?

Yes. By definition of comp. I mean humans are computer and seems to care
about punishment.

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.

That is life, but I don't think it's arithmetic.

Yes, but that is due to your a priori that machines cannot think, be
conscious, ...

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.

The way I see it, my way opens the door to a whole new universe of
impersonal artifacts and beauty, while I think with comp, all we will end up
doing is reinventing ourselves.

Perhaps. There is a sense to say that the creation is what God can use to reivent himself all the time. But why would that prevent artifacts and beauty? Is not more beautiful? Well, that's personal taste of course, a
priori independent of what is, or not.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to . For more options, visit this group at .

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to