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
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
quantum logic based on the algebra of the observable/linear
operators) and the logic obtained from the arithmetical
UDA refers to an argument. It is the argument showing that if we
machine (even physical machine) then in fine physics has to be
the arithmetical relations, and some internal views related to it.
Isn't an argument a logical construct though? I can't argue a
iron into being magnetized. There has to be a plausible interface
pure logic and anything tangible, doesn't there? It doesn't have
matter, even subjective experience is not conjured by logic alone.
use logic to alone to deny that we see what we see or feel what we
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
how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math in
With comp there is only math (arithmetic) and from this we can
numbers develop beliefs (axiomatically defined) and why they obey
How do tangible things interface with logic -
I guess they would not tangible if they do not. tangibility ask for
amount of consistency.
how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, and
capacity can they express that obedience?
With comp this can be derived from the laws to which the entities
0, 1, 2, 3, ...) obeys.
The number tree does not need to know anything for being able to
Is your answer to 'what makes logic happen?' rooted in the
At the basic ontological level, I can limit the assumption in
I'm not sure why that changes anything at all. I think it makes it
worse, because if you have a basic ontological level with very
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
Worst, we cannot make sense of it in some absolute ontological
assuming comp, we can't avoid the delusion by the universal numbers
Why do binary instructions make themselves seem like pork (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
of the "roasted pork smelly experiences".
Actually we don't need logic at the base ontological level, only
substitution rules and the +, * equality axioms.
Aren't rules and axioms the defining structures of logic? It
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,
UDA: at most.
B: "Well, you don't need much logic. In fact you don't need any
you really need is logic."
You need logic and arithmetic. Technically it can be shown that
need so much logic (equality axioms are almost enough). The
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
such machine does not require the belief or assumptions in that
I'm not even bringing observers into it. I'm not talking about
of participants, I'm talking about the emergence of the
possibility of logic
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,
We will accept that if we assume p and if we assume (p->q), then
derive q from those assumption.
Logicians and computer scientist studies those kind of relations
proposition. It is a branch of math, and it is not necessarily
So you are saying that logic comes from human teachings about how
simplify the relations of ideas, not a universal primitive which is
of animating matter or minds by itself.
That's ok with me, but you don't need any smoke or mirrors after
you are pretty much committed to 'because maths' as the alpha and
answer to all possible questions.
On the contrary. The math is used to be precise, and then to
we don't have the answers at all, but we do have tools to make
clearer, and sometimes this can give already some shape of the
seeing that comp bactracks to Plato's conception of reality (even
This is not much. Just a remind that science has not decided
Plato and Aristotle in theology.
How do we know that we aren't making the questions clearer by
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
focus from there.
What entire universe? What is that, where does it come from? What
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
things true? How does it actually happen?
We assume some notion of arithmetical truth. I hope you can agree
proposition like "44 is a prime number or 44 is not a prime
What are the mechanics of that assumption though?
In comp we explains that mechanics with elementary arithmetic,
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
neuroscientific approach to explaining consciousness is ultimately
too. It might be a clue that the only way that we ourselves can
from circular thoughts is by using our will to consciously shift our
attention from it.
Or resolve the circularity. Computer science provides tools for
The details of the propositions are not interesting to me, rather
the ontology of proposition itself. What is it?
That is a very interesting question, but out of topic. Logician
often proposition by the set of worlds where those proposition are
they often defined world by the set of propositions true in that
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,
It is an entire field of subject.
With comp we don't need to go that far yet, although it is clearly
So comp is a proposition which has not yet proposed a theory of
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
comp by attaching proposition to couple "sentence" + "what a
machine can do with the sentences". But this does not solve the
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
Again, that is an interesting question too. here comp can answer,
3p view, a number relatively to a bunch of numbers.
Why and how does a number propose (undefined non-numbers?) to
By virtue of the fact that they obeys the laws of addition and
multiplication, which enable them to have complex computational
with each others.
How do they do it exactly?
By using their relations with each others. You need to study some
or follow my explanations on FOAR.
What does it mean to use a relation though? It's sensory-motor
You can't redefined all term. I use relation in the usual
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
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
supposed to be reconfigured at some level of course. We assume
thesis, although it is easy to avoid it, technically (but not so
Church thesis is similarly reflexive logic. There is no reason to
that because anything that can be put into a Boolean box has other
commonalities that this (unquestionably important and worthwhile)
commonality extends to causally efficacious presence. An air
doesn't create air. Church assumes the air of sense making from
and then shows how all manner of air conditioners can be assembled
same fundamental blueprint. I'm not falling for it though. It's a
hand maneuver. While functionalism does card tricks with logic,
and reality of sense supplies the table, tablecloth, stage, lights,
audience, and girl to saw in half. Yes, I see, you pulled my card,
Diamonds, very impressive - truly, but how does it taste like
dance Gangnam style?
Comp explains why we cannot completely explain the sense, and this
rather nice as it prevents reductionist theories of sense.
On the contrary, by being open to sense in machine, comp is rather
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
get to the hard problem.
Indeed, comp does not solve it per se. You need the G/G*
approach the explanation, which can be shown to be necessarily
So the observability with measure one is given by p = Bp & Dt &
p arithmetical sigma_1 (this is coherent with the way the
has to be redefined through UDA). Then the quantum logic is given
quantization <>p, thanks to the law p -> <>p, and this makes
reverse the Goldblatt modal translation of quantum logic into
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
simple rational behavior that we all know. UDA does not use
logic-branch-math, but of course it use the logic that you are
using when sending a post to a list (implicitly).
AUDA needs logic-the branch of math, due to the link between
science and mathematical logic.
That's reasonable to me, but what I'm talking about is getting
curtain of 'simple rational behavior that we all know', and what I
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
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
nothing, unless you amputate machines from thinking, consciousness,
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
even one evidence for the existence of primitive matter, beyond the
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
43 is prime, then I can explain nothing, indeed. But you seem to
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
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
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
or that psychic phenomena is illogical and the universe which we
live in is impossible. I don't think the latter is plausible
would undermine our ability to have any kind of meaningful opinion
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
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
That would cut all the funding in fundamental sciences, as this
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?
just accept that car moves when we press on the pedal?"
I think just the opposite. My view says that thermo-kinetics is
As a beginning it is fuzzy and assumes a priori much more. I do
the importance of the concept of heat, we might all be some sort
engine, but this is more a matter of implementation.
we need to start studying what is the 'we' that presses the pedal
More funding for interdisciplinary science as well as fundamental.
The everyday sense is a part of reality, and I would understand
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
lasting current idea that there is a primitive physical universe.
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
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
Then I don't see the advantage of a reality which is comp or
If you search advantages, then you let your mind open to wishful
which is not a truth friendly attitude, even if the Löb formula
give a sort of role to a form of arithmetical placebo (see sane04
Either way we are depersonalized and our lives are de-presented
subterranean abstractions crank out automatism with ourselves as
deluded spectators, powerless in our inauthentic simulated worlds.
No. I'm just afraid you get some bad math teachers. Or you are
understand that reductionism is provably dead about numbers and
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
teachers" is admission that the beauty and warmth of mathematics
seeing them with the right eyes.
It's your sense of numbers which is wonderful - your sensitivity to
not the numbers themselves.
That is debatable. I have learn to appreciate the numbers because
people found amazing relations, and succeed in convincing me, and
taking the time to do the work, about the truth of those relations.
They are just unconscious, automatic fragments of mirror which will
whatever light is present.
If your reason is particularly illuminating in the mathematical-
of sense, then it's like lighting up a fluorescent disco with a
If I go in there with only my FM radio to listen to, I don't hear
If instead we look at what we are looking at, and see realism for
sensory experience that it is, then arithmetic truth and Hermetic
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
(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
them, and indeed comp ascribe consciousness to a much vaster set
than any form of non comp.
You just illustrate your reductionist conception of number and
Machine and number I think are as vast a universe as 1p experience,
the impersonal 3p mode. From my view, it is functionalism which
3p assumptions and compulsively assigns them to 1p, mainly out of a
It assigns 1p to them, yes. Strong AI too. It is part of the
opposite assumption treats them as zombie. In case of doubt I think
attribution of consciousness to zombie is less damageable.
and the specialized logic being one category of specialized
Logic is not fundamental at all, for UDA, you need only the
logic that you need to be able to do a pizza. Arithmetic is far
important, if only to understand how a computer functions.
Haha, you're still telling me that a little bit of shit in the
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
and stronger. Logic is just a very good tool, like algebra. I
so it is normal that computer science plays some role, and many
related to computer science.
Isn't arithmetic a kind of logic though?
Not really. (of course with "kind of" you might say that everything
kind of something).
Doesn't counting and addition require that an output is guided by
transformations on an input?
Not purely logical. It needs to assume some stuff, like 0 is a
that is not logical. The early 20th century logicians have tried to
"0 is a number" from logic, but they failed, and eventually we
now what it has to fail (failure of logicism, discovery of the
intuition in math).
Yet more advanced logic can help for two things, when doing
-showing that a proposition follows from other propositions
-showing that a proposition does not follow from other propositions
Then, concerning the relation between mind, thinking, feeling,
etc. many result in logic put some light, and that is not
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,
Logic is just like algebra, and those things imposes themselves
tackle precise theories, and relations between theories. It helps
refuting them, or representing a theory in another, etc.
I know that comp invites to math, and that this seems to be a
To me the problem with comp is that it perfectly describes a
we don't actually live in.
Not at all. Comp reformulate the problem into justifying what we
from arithmetic with the internal views. If this don't match we
comp. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine emulable, at
That assumption makes it so that all internal views are modeled in
which automatically justifies them to comp. It is the yellow
prove that everything is yellow.
All theories are such glasses. You statement attacks science, not
comp assumption. It criticize the act of doing assumption, it seems
Of course we can stop science and enjoy the view, and that can be a
philosophy of life, but it is not what scientists do.
In theory a formula could move my arm, because my arm could, in
nothing but data, but in fact, that isn't what we see. Most of our
struggles for mathematically irrelevant resources - time, money,
money, more sex, etc. They aren't arithmetically interesting
Don't confuse a tool and what humans do with it.
Why not? What is a tool for humans other than some implement with
humans do things?
So human can be guilty, not the tools. Guns are pacific, when human
sleep in the closet.
The universe which comp describes should be one of florid
not struggle and frustration. How does a computer get frustrated?
When he explores and got punished,
I think that is an anthropomorphic projection. Is there any
evidence which shows outcomes effected by punishment?
As much as with human, by definition as humans are machine, by the
Not talking about disadvantageous game conditions, but actual
intention to cause hurt feelings. Do computers care if you punish
Yes. By definition of comp. I mean humans are computer and seems to
when authoritative arguments abound, when the elders fear too much
youth not enough. The universal machine get frustrated when her
inspiration is constrained by the contingencies, despite they
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
But we can suggest better way, and listening to the others is a good
heuristic, and when the other looks quite different, like with
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
reivent himself all the time. But why would that prevent artifacts
beauty? Is not more beautiful? Well, that's personal taste of
priori independent of what is, or not.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
"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