On 30 Nov 2012, at 16:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:Richard, On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:Bruno, 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. BrunoSince energy is what makes things happen

`Wow, you are quick here. What you say assume a priori Energy, some`

`physical laws relating energy and happening, etc.`

then comp makes everything happen in Everett's universe.

`There is a sense to say that arithmetic makes everything happen, from`

`the 1pov view of the arithmetical creature, and that this follows from`

`the comp supposition, OK, but it is still an open problem if this`

`gives a quantum multiverse, or Everett precise relative state. But`

`there are sign that it might be the case indeed. It is testable.`

Bruno

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:On 27 Nov 2012, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchalwrote:On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchalwrote:On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:54:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchalwrote: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 fromobservation(thequantum logic based on the algebra of the observable/linearpositiveoperators) and the logic obtained from the arithmeticalquantization,which exists already. <snip>UDA refers to an argument. It is the argument showing that ifwe aremachine (even physical machine) then in fine physics has to be justified bythe arithmetical relations, and some internal views related toit.Isn't an argument a logical construct though? I can't argue apiece ofiron into being magnetized. There has to be a plausible interface betweenpure logic and anything tangible, doesn't there? It doesn't haveto bematter, even subjective experience is not conjured by logicalone. Canweuse logic to alone to deny that we see what we see or feel whatwe 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'tknow whyandhow electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of math inphysics.With comp there is only math (arithmetic) and from this we canexplainwhy numbers develop beliefs (axiomatically defined) and why they obey apparent laws How do tangible things interface with logic -I guess they would not tangible if they do not. tangibility askfor someamount of consistency.how do they know the logic is there, how do they 'obey' it, andthroughwhat 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 todivide6, for example.Is your answer to 'what makes logic happen?' rooted in thepresumptionof logic?At the basic ontological level, I can limit the assumption inlogicquite a lot.I'm not sure why that changes anything at all. I think it makesit evenworse, because if you have a basic ontological level with verylimitedlogical assumptions, and everything is reducible to that, thenwhat isit 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 decodedby auniversal numbers into the apperance of a roast pork.then why isn't it a string of binary instructions? We do we needthe porkloin?Worst, we cannot make sense of it in some absolute ontologicalsense, buassuming comp, we can't avoid the delusion by the universalnumbers aboutit.Why do binary instructions make themselves seem like pork (orshapes oranything other than what they actually are)?By the decoding process, like 100011011110 can be decoded intoadd 0 tothecontent of register 1000. Of course it is more involved in the"realcase" of the "roasted pork smelly experiences".Actually we don't need logic at the base ontological level,only simplesubstitution rules and the +, * equality axioms.Aren't rules and axioms the defining structures of logic? Itsounds likethis: 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 butnoteverything that makes sense is logical.You are right, even with comp. You need arithmetic above. Atleast, andwith UDA: at most.B: "Well, you don't need much logic. In fact you don't need anylogic.All you really need is logic."You need logic and arithmetic. Technically it can be shown thatyoudon'tneed so much logic (equality axioms are almost enough). Thearithmetic(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 amachine/number having bigger set of logical beliefs. But theexistenceofsuch machine does not require the belief or assumptions in thatlogic.I'm not even bringing observers into it. I'm not talking aboutawarenessof participants, I'm talking about the emergence of thepossibility oflogic at all. Logic is defined by the minimum we assume likewe will say that "p & q" is true, when p is true and q is true,and onlythen.We will accept that if we assume p and if we assume (p->q), thenwe cabderive q from those assumption. etc.Logicians and computer scientist studies those kind of relationsbetweenproposition. It is a branch of math, and it is not necessarilyrelatedto foundations.So you are saying that logic comes from human teachings about howwe cansimplify the relations of ideas, not a universal primitive which is capable of animating matter or minds by itself. Yes.That's ok with me, but you don't need any smoke or mirrorsafter that,you are pretty much committed to 'because maths' as the alphaand omegaanswer to all possible questions.On the contrary. The math is used to be precise, and then torealizethatwe don't have the answers at all, but we do have tools to makethequestionsclearer, and sometimes this can give already some shape of theanswer,like seeing that comp bactracks to Plato's conception of reality (even Pythagorus).This is not much. Just a remind that science has not decidedbetweenPlato and Aristotle in theology.How do we know that we aren't making the questions clearer byamputatingeverything 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 anothertheory.I start from the entire universe as a single indivisible axiomand refinefocus from there.What entire universe? What is that, where does it come from? Whatis therelation with consciousness. You start from what I want to explain.when translated in arithmetic, makes a relative physicalcertainty intoa true Sigma_1 sentence, which has to be provable, and consistent.Proof and consistency, again, are already features of logic.What makesthings true? How does it actually happen?We assume some notion of arithmetical truth. I hope you canagree withproposition like "44 is a prime number or 44 is not a primenumber".What are the mechanics of that assumption though?In comp we explains that mechanics with elementary arithmetic,universalnumbers, 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 thecurrentneuroscientific approach to explaining consciousness is ultimately circulartoo. It might be a clue that the only way that we ourselves candisengagefrom circular thoughts is by using our will to consciously shiftourattention from it.Or resolve the circularity. Computer science provides tools fordoingthat.The details of the propositions are not interesting to me,rather it isthe ontology of proposition itself. What is it?That is a very interesting question, but out of topic. Logicianmodeloften proposition by the set of worlds where those propositionare true,andthey often defined world by the set of propositions true in thatworld,making eventually a proposition a set of set of worlds, and aworld aset 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 isclearly onthe horizon.So comp is a proposition which has not yet proposed a theory ofwhat aproposition is.Indeed. Proposition, as opposed to mere syntactical sentences, isasmysterious as consciousness, meaning, reality, etc. We need muchmoreprogress to handle that kind of things. But we can avoid thedifficultiesincomp by attaching proposition to couple "sentence" + "what auniversalmachine can do with the sentences". But this does not solve theriddle,but it can help.Keep in mind that all what I show in how complex the mind-bodyissue iswith 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 cananswer, in the3p view, a number relatively to a bunch of numbers.Why and how does a number propose (undefined non-numbers?) tonumerousother numbers? By virtue of the fact that they obeys the laws of addition andmultiplication, which enable them to have complex computationalrelationswith each others.How do they do it exactly?By using their relations with each others. You need to studysome books,or follow my explanations on FOAR.What does it mean to use a relation though? It's sensory-motormetaphor.You can't redefined all term. I use relation in the usual(mathematicalsense). A relation on a set A can be defined as a subset of AxA,forexample. 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. LolBeyond that, it's just mind-numbing patterns playing themselvesoutforever. Participation is everything and no amount ofinterrogatingfunctions can conceivably synthesize that from logic. Logic doesnotparticipate, it constrains and guides that which isparticipating as aninert codex of blind axioms.Not much is assumed, except for UDA, where you are asked if youarewilling to accept a computer in place of your brain. Thecomputer issupposed to be reconfigured at some level of course. We assumealsoChurchthesis, although it is easy to avoid it, technically (but notso 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 airconditionerdoesn't create air. Church assumes the air of sense making fromthestartand then shows how all manner of air conditioners can beassembled fromthe same fundamental blueprint. I'm not falling for it though. It's a sleight ofhand maneuver. While functionalism does card tricks with logic,thepowerand reality of sense supplies the table, tablecloth, stage,lights,audience, and girl to saw in half. Yes, I see, you pulled mycard, KingofDiamonds, very impressive - truly, but how does it taste likechocolateand dance Gangnam style?Comp explains why we cannot completely explain the sense, andthis israther nice as it prevents reductionist theories of sense.On the contrary, by being open to sense in machine, comp israther openin matter of others consciousness.I don't see that explains the sense at all though. It explainshow to usea 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*incompletenessto approach the explanation, which can be shown to be necessarily incompletable.So the observability with measure one is given by []p = Bp & Dt& p,withp arithmetical sigma_1 (this is coherent with the way thephysicalrealityhas to be redefined through UDA). Then the quantum logic isgiven bythe 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 adjectivefor allsimple 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 betweencomputerscience and mathematical logic.That's reasonable to me, but what I'm talking about is gettingbehindthecurtain of 'simple rational behavior that we all know', and whatI findisnot a Platonic monoilith of idealism, but the ordinaryexperience ofdiscernment and participation. Logic supervenes on sense, butsense doesnot supervene on logic. You are right on this. Even with comp.With comp sense supervene on logic and arithmetic though, in atestableway 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). Thisamputatesnothing, unless you amputate machines from thinking,consciousness, butthen it is your theory which amputates certain person.It says, 'whatever fits in this box also fits in every other boxthat isthe same size'. It disqualifies everything out of its own box though.As a consequence we lost primitive matter, but then nobody hasever showneven one evidence for the existence of primitive matter, beyond the naturalextrapolation of what we see (which proves nothing for theontology).It has no theory of where logic and arithmetic emerge,We need to start from simple truth on which you can agree. If youdoubtthat43 is prime, then I can explain nothing, indeed. But you seem tostartfromthe entire universe, and sense, which nobody can really agree on.It isonlyrecent that scientists approach the notion of sense, and thenotion ofphysical 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 universewithoutlogical consistency, but there is not any proof that I know ofwhichsuggests that logic relies on qualia or matter. Therefore, itseems tome that logic must either be a psychic phenomenon and therefore not primitive,or that psychic phenomena is illogical and the universe which wethinkwelive in is impossible. I don't think the latter is plausiblebecause itwould undermine our ability to have any kind of meaningfulopinion aboutanything real if that were the case.It is unclear. Logic plays different role at many levels, and sodoalgebra, statistics, arithmetic, computer science.It isn't clear that logic is the cause. To the contrary, I thinkit hasto 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 'everydaysense'being the realityThat would cut all the funding in fundamental sciences, as thisanswereverything. It is a bit like "why do you waste your time tryingtounderstanding the thermo-kinetics of car motor and how carmoves? Whynot just accept that car moves when we press on the pedal?"I think just the opposite. My view says that thermo-kinetics isjust thebeginning,As a beginning it is fuzzy and assumes a priori much more. I doagree onthe importance of the concept of heat, we might all be some sortofsteam engine, but this is more a matter of implementation.we need to start studying what is the 'we' that presses thepedal also.More funding for interdisciplinary science as well as fundamental. I agree.The everyday sense is a part of reality, and I would understandit interm of the simplest assumption possible. Then my point is onlythat ifcomp is true (that is, roughly, if we are machine) then we can already refute thelasting current idea that there is a primitive physicaluniverse. Itgivesat least another rational conception of reality, which givesthe hopeto get the origin of the physical laws, and the material patterns.I don't see the advantage of a reality which is primitivelyarithmeticor primitively physical. I just show that if comp is correct, then it is enough, and addingassumptions is cheating with respect to both mind and matter(and theirrelation).Then I don't see the advantage of a reality which is comp ormaterialist.If you search advantages, then you let your mind open to wishful thinking,which is not a truth friendly attitude, even if the Löb formulaseems togive a sort of role to a form of arithmetical placebo (see sane04part2).Either way we are depersonalized and our lives are de-presentedwhilesubterranean 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 areunable tounderstand that reductionism is provably dead about numbers andmachinesalready. You are the one who put the cold in some place.It's hidden right in your words. "I'm just afraid you get somebad mathteachers" is admission that the beauty and warmth of mathematicsrequiresseeing them with the right eyes. Yes, OK.It's your sense of numbers which is wonderful - your sensitivityto them,not the numbers themselves.That is debatable. I have learn to appreciate the numbers becausesomepeople found amazing relations, and succeed in convincing me, and everyonetaking the time to do the work, about the truth of thoserelations.They are just unconscious, automatic fragments of mirror which will refelect whatever light is present. Yes.If your reason is particularly illuminating in the mathematical-logicalbandof sense, then it's like lighting up a fluorescent disco with ablacklight.If I go in there with only my FM radio to listen to, I don't hearmuch ofanything. OK.If instead we look at what we are looking at, and see realismfor thesensory experience that it is, then arithmetic truth andHermetic artsfall 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 todescribe(you poetry, novel, movies, music, etc.), so we can't build onit. Butit isnot because we build on 3p things, that we stop to ascribeconsciousnesstothem, and indeed comp ascribe consciousness to a much vaster setofentities than any form of non comp.You just illustrate your reductionist conception of number andmachine.Machine and number I think are as vast a universe as 1pexperience, butin the impersonal 3p mode. From my view, it is functionalism which overstates3p assumptions and compulsively assigns them to 1p, mainly out ofa fearof personal realism.It assigns 1p to them, yes. Strong AI too. It is part of theassumption.Theopposite assumption treats them as zombie. In case of doubt Ithink theattribution of consciousness to zombie is less damageable.and the specialized logic being one category of specializedmechanismswithin that?Logic is not fundamental at all, for UDA, you need only theeverydaylogic that you need to be able to do a pizza. Arithmetic is farmoreimportant, if only to understand how a computer functions.Haha, you're still telling me that a little bit of shit in thetunasaladdoesn't count. If it tastes like logic, then I don't think youcan useit to prop up a primitive that supervenes on logic.I never use the word logic. I use arithmetic which is infinitelyricherand stronger. Logic is just a very good tool, like algebra. Iassumecomp,so it is normal that computer science plays some role, and manylogicsare related to computer science.Isn't arithmetic a kind of logic though?Not really. (of course with "kind of" you might say thateverything is akind of something).Doesn't counting and addition require that an output is guided bylogicaltransformations on an input?Not purely logical. It needs to assume some stuff, like 0 is anumber,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 weunderstandnow what it has to fail (failure of logicism, discovery of theimportanceof intuition in math).Yet more advanced logic can help for two things, when doingreasoning:-showing that a proposition follows from other propositions(deduction)-showing that a proposition does not follow from otherpropositions(independence).Then, concerning the relation between mind, thinking, feeling,truth,etc. many result in logic put some light, and that is notastonishingonceyou bet on comp, even if temporarily for the sake of theargument.In logic, the branch of math, the beginning is the mostdifficult,because you have to understand what you have to not understand,likeformal expressions.Logic is just like algebra, and those things imposes themselvesonce wetackle precise theories, and relations between theories. Ithelps forrefuting them, or representing a theory in another, etc.I know that comp invites to math, and that this seems to be aproblemfor many.To me the problem with comp is that it perfectly describes auniversethat we don't actually live in.Not at all. Comp reformulate the problem into justifying what welive infrom arithmetic with the internal views. If this don't match weabandoncomp. Comp is just the assumption that we are machine emulable,at somelevel.That assumption makes it so that all internal views are modeledin a waywhich automatically justifies them to comp. It is the yellowglasses thatprove that everything is yellow.All theories are such glasses. You statement attacks science, notjustthecomp assumption. It criticize the act of doing assumption, itseems tome.Of course we can stop science and enjoy the view, and that can bea goodphilosophy of life, but it is not what scientists do.In theory a formula could move my arm, because my arm could, intheory,benothing but data, but in fact, that isn't what we see. Most ofour livesarestruggles for mathematically irrelevant resources - time, money,sex,moremoney, more sex, etc. They aren't arithmetically interestingproblems.Don't confuse a tool and what humans do with it.Why not? What is a tool for humans other than some implement withwhichhumans do things?So human can be guilty, not the tools. Guns are pacific, whenhuman letthem sleep in the closet.The universe which comp describes should be one of floridplasticity andconstant exploration, I agree!not struggle and frustration. How does a computer getfrustrated? Whywould it? When he explores and got punished,I think that is an anthropomorphic projection. Is there anymathematicalevidence which shows outcomes effected by punishment?As much as with human, by definition as humans are machine, bythe compassumption.Not talking about disadvantageous game conditions, but actualcruelty andintention to cause hurt feelings. Do computers care if you punishthem?Yes. By definition of comp. I mean humans are computer and seemsto careabout punishment.when authoritative arguments abound, when the elders fear toomuch andthe youth not enough. The universal machine get frustrated when her universalinspiration is constrained by the contingencies, despite theybroughthim 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,beconscious, ...But we can suggest better way, and listening to the others is agoodheuristic, and when the other looks quite different, like withmachine,we might learn something.The way I see it, my way opens the door to a whole new universe ofimpersonal artifacts and beauty, while I think with comp, all wewill endup doing is reinventing ourselves.Perhaps. There is a sense to say that the creation is what Godcan use toreivent himself all the time. But why would that preventartifacts andbeauty? Is not more beautiful? Well, that's personal taste ofcourse, apriori independent of what is, or not. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --You received this message because you are subscribed to theGoogle 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 GoogleGroups"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 GoogleGroups"Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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 GoogleGroups "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.