On 22 Apr 2013, at 13:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:56:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:20:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> But what makes the laws of physics turn into physics? What makes
>> physics follow the laws?
>
> Study UDA. It answers this precisely. Observability is lawful. I
> gave the axioms, and shows them being theorem of arithmetic, once
> comp is at the metatlevel.
>
> It's not enough that observability is lawful,
Indeed.
> physical enactments must be identified as a pure consequence of law
> - which it can't be.
No it is too.
Why do you assume so? What makes a map into a territory, and why
would a map want to be one?
You don't need to make a map into a territory. It is sufficient to
embed the map in the territory. There will be a self-referential
point, which indicates its own localization. The same occur in
computer science, but is more technical to explain. It is what I have
studied and applied in the cognitive science.
> All laws of geometry can be simulated computationally without
> generating any physical lines, points, or shapes.
No need to generate them.
Then how do you explain all geometric appearances in the universe?
Two things: first there is already a lot of geometry in the
extensional possible relations among the numbers (that is usual math).
Then the *appearance* of geometrical and physical is explained by
computer science, with the qualia aspect explained by the logic of
self-reference.
> When does UDA generate geometry, why should it ever do that, and how
> does it accomplish it?
It is explained in sane2004, and that is the object of many posts
here.
I don't think so. I think that anything anyone has said here can
give a single insight into why abstract computations could, would,
or should ever clothe themselves in sensory experience of any kind,
including geometry.
I hear but you don't provide any argument, other than statement of
primitiveness for the experience, which is what the (Bp & p) part of
the machine already say. But the machine can look inward and
understand that indeed, that true primitiveness feeling is a not a
proof of the primitiveness.
>
>> What would be the point of physics if this realm of Comp already
>> exists?
>
> It exists, like the prime number exists. What is the point of prime
> numbers? Not sure such question makes sense, but who knows.
>
> Prime numbers exist if you understand what you are looking for.
It exists even if you don't understand them. It is like the taxes.
The taxes are only a belief system until that belief system inspires
people to direct the actions of their bodies toward enforcing it.
The primeness of numbers is an analysis of counting, it need not
have been discovered for the universe to be complete. Taxes need not
have been invented for the universe to be complete. All that is
needed for the universe is sensory perception and motor participation.
Terms like "universe", "sensory", "motor" and "participation" must be
explained in a non circular way.
> So do words ending in the word 's'. There is a huge difference,
> however, in questioning the meaning of a pattern within a symbol
> system, and a completely arbitrary attachment of all of the physical
> phenomena in the universe to an abstract system. What Comp really
> does is push dualism halfway under the carpet, leaving only mind
> exposed and claiming body as an epiphenomena.
A body cannot be an epiphenomenon. That's does not make any sense. But
comp makes it into an epinoumenon, like ether, phlogiston, and other
superstition.
Ok, but how does that change Comp's failure to explain the specific
aesthetic nature of that superstition?
Why should comp fails here, and also, a failure of a theory to explain
something does not mean that the theory is false. It means that some
job must be done.
Ether, phlogiston, and other superstitions are superstitions because
they are subject to our imagination to give them any kind of
definition . Shapes, colors, textures of superstitions are not
agreed upon - with matter of course, universal agreement on the
macrocosmic level is their defining quality.
There is no unanimity there, and unanimity is not an evidence of truth
nor even plausibility.
> The question remains though, if all bodies can be simulated,
With comp bodies cannot be emulated by Turing machine. They can be
simulated at some substitution level on which yopu might bet. careful,
it is a very important nuance to grasp if you want to understand why
machine believes in some correct local way to matter and physical
laws.
I don't think that its a nuance, it's obvious. I have designed video
games on a computer before, so I have no problem understanding how
an avatar detects collisions and behaves as if certain colored
pixels are an immobile obstruction. But that's a cartoon. It is an
automated picture which reminds us of our own experience of a body.
The pixels on the screen are not detecting each other, nor are the
numbers in the program, it is all incidental. The collisions are
figurative and anesthetic, not literal and aesthetic. Switches are
being opened and closed in memory which illuminates a monitor -
that's all that is going on as far as anything is concerned except
in the minds of programmers and audiences. It's a one dimensional
representation, it has no wholeness.
It's confusing to say that Comp can't emulate bodies...so what makes
bodies then and how can Comp claim to explain consciousness without
explaining our consciousness of bodies?
By a relative measure on all computations + notion of first and third
person view, handled eventually through self-reference logic. See the
paper mentioned.
> then why have bodies at all?
To talk and manifest our consciousness relatively to other persons.
But why does that require a body? According to Comp, numbers are the
only things that really ever are 'manifested', so what could it
possibly mean for numbers to manifest as bodies or persons?
A number can manifest itself relatively to a universal number which
read it as a program or machine, automatically with a notion of body.
Then the math explains much more, and many problems are open, of
course. But that's make the research fun and worthwhile.
> If anything can be simulated as a number relation, then what's with
> all of the shapes and textures?
This is what is explained by computer science. Machines cannot avoid
them. It follows from addition and multiplication, like the prime
numbers.
I don't believe you. I do not think that the shape of a literal
triangle is explained by number relations unless you already have a
universe which has infinite aesthetic wonders on tap to add to any
meaningless recursive iteration of computers science.
You might be right, but you fail to provide an argument.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
