On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless anddoubly so!I don't think we know that.Hi Bruno, Of course "we don't know that for sure"... you are being ridiculous !This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with aproof, for your idea of "we know that". I understand...The same is true for the proposition "we are not machine".Is not p, of Bp&p, a hypothesis as well?Yes. But not at the same level.

Hi Bruno, OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?

Stephen P. King wrote (to me):But neither Bp nor Bp & p are ontological. Only p is is.Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is ontological?I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...},with the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that baselevel, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological asopposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means"believed by some machine", and which I denote by Bp. Of course, andthat is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely arithmeticalproposition (beweisbar("p")), but they are epistemological becausethey involve a machine, and a proposition coded in the machinelanguage.When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describesthe ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical propositionwith their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmeticalproposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:- the "thinking" of some machine, like Bp, or- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp & p, or the observation ofsome machine like Bp & Dt, or- the feeling of some machine like Bp & Dt & p.See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of thecorresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. Idon't want to be long.I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK. Precisionhas its place and time but not here when our time to respond is limited.That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age 7to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how adigital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew already,in some (platonic) sense.You seem sometimes to forget that the children also havequestions for you to answer...???Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. Ihave no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurdcomment.I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just preciselysaid. This include children.But you demand too much exactness in a response, as youdemonstrate above.On the contrary. Children uses plain language.

`No, they use naive language. They do not assume that they know what`

`they do not know.`

You give always too much precise answer but with a non relevantprecision. Here you were just wrong, but no matter how we try to makethe point, you will evade it by a 1004 move, an allusion, or onopinion assertion, making hard to progress.

You are claiming that my question is incoherent. OK, let us move along.

Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universalnumber by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believershould be astonished.OK. "Human are relative universal number by comp..." Could youadd more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?Relative to what?Either (according to the context):-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that weassume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing thecombinators, but people are less familiar with them), or-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively tothe base theory, or-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universalnumber, which is relative to the base theory, etc.Fine, could you consider how the general pattern of this can beseen in the isomorphisms of universal numbers?Which isomorphisms?

`Relations between universal numbers that are equivalences. For`

`example, the universal number that encodes the statement X in language B`

`is isomorphic to the statement X in language A, iff B(X) = A(X) ...`

Consider how many different languages humans use to describe the samephysical world, we would think it silly if someone made claims thatonly English was the 'correct' language. So too with mathematics.You confuse the content of mathematics and the language used. Themathematical reality has nothing to do with language.

`No, that is not my sin. My sin is that I do not know exactly now to`

`communicate in your language.`

You attribute to me the idea that chalkboard don't exist. Did Iever said that?UDA Step 8.Many others have already told you this many times. UDA step 8concludes that chalkboard does not exist in a primary sense. Notthat chalkboard does not exist in the observable sense.OK, my point is that just as the chalkboard emerges so too do thepossible arithmetic representations of said chalkboard.That could make sense if you put the card on the table, and tell whatyou are assuming, and how the numbers emerge from it.

`You are actually asking that I know what to write before I have the`

`ability to write that you want me to write so that you can understand my`

`thoughts. Nice burden to place upon me!`

But it is has been proved that it has to be Turing equivalent, and sothe base theory will just be another Turing universal system. I usearithmetic because people are already familiar with it.

`How, exactly is the claim "has it (all physical implementations of`

`comp) been proved that it has to be Turing equivalent" falsifiable? It`

`requires that we examine every possible physical world without any`

`guidance of what a "physical world" might be!`

They are co-dependent in my dual aspect theory.We don't use theory in the same sense. I have not yet seen a theory,in the usual sense of theory.

So?

I do not understand how you explain the emergence of the chalkboardexcept to refer to a vague "arithmetic body problem'.That's the whole object of my work and my post here. Physics is givenby the S4Grz1, Z1* and X1* logic. But even without AUDA, the origin ofphysics is entirely explained by the first person indeterminacy on thecomputations.

`No! An 'explanation' is not an explanation unless an arbitrarily`

`large number of observers can agree that the model of the theory is`

`experienced by them, i.e. that it is 'real'.`

And the explanation makes clear why it separates into qualia and quanta.

How?

You don't need to believe in comp to understand the theory.

???

That would instantaneously refutes comp. The conclusion is thatphysics is not the fundamental science, and that it is reduced toarithmetic. Not that physics is non sense. OIn the contrary, withcomp we see how a physical reality, even a quantum one, isunavoidable for almost all universal numbers.Yes, but can we try to restate this in a different form?Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is notlogically inconsistent with consciousness.I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classicalmechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself.? (that seems to contradict comp, and be rather 1004)You do not seem consider the need to error correct and adapt tochanging local conditions for a conscious machine nor the need tomaintain access to low entropy resources. Your machines are neverhungry.Take the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky way at the level of strings,with 10^1000 decimals. Its evolution is emulated by infinitely manyarithmetical relation, and in all of them a lot of machines arehungry, and many lack resources, and other do not. Now, suchcomputation might not have the right first person indeterminacymeasure, but in this case comp is false, and if someone show that hewill refute comp. But in all case, arithmetic handle all relativeresources. So you it seems that you are not correct here.I think that the measure is determined locally by the number ofmachines that get fed versus the total number of possible machinesthat could be implemented in that location, very vaguely speaking.You escape again the point made.

`I escape purposely. I have learned from the best escape artists!`

`The emulation of the Milky way (with 10^1000 decimals) demands a`

`specific quantity of resources to be run. This is not philosophy! In`

`physics there is an upper bound on the quantity of computations that can`

`occur in a given space-time hyper volume: Bekenstein's bound`

`<http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound>. This is ignored`

`in Platonism.`

-- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.