On 12 Jul 2013, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what
an external purely deterministic system will do,
> In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning
of its parts. Yes. We might not know if the machine will stop or
not, but whatever happens is determined by the initial digital
conditions.
Yes, and that means that determinism and predictability are NOT the
same thing.
Exactly.
> That has nothing to do with the First Person Indeterminacy
If we can't predict what a external complex system will do then we
can't predict what another complex system, ourselves, will see or do
either. Because of this some will just say "I dunno what city I will
see next or what I will do about it when I do see it"
OK.
while others who wish to be more pompous will say "not knowing what
city I will see is an example of First Person Indeterminacy".
Because if you agree with "I dunno which city I will see", by deducing
it through an explicit appeal to a level of mechanical substitution,
you see that the digital third person determinacy is responsible for
indeterminate, from the first person points of view, experiences.
If you agree with it, it means you can go to step 4.
The term "First Person Indeterminacy" may be a new invention of
yours but the idea behind it was well known in the stone age.
Excellent. Indeed, we know that since we were amoebas.
Sometime saying the obvious can change everything.
That relative indeterminacy is invariant for some digital
transformation, or substitution, and that has some consequences.
Eventually it shows that both grandmother in the garden, and the
physicists in the LHC uses what a logician would call a limitation
principle, which is equivalent with an induction axiom (like in Peano
Arithmetic).
They bet there is a reality, following patterns, and that predicting
third person patterns allows them to lift the prediction on the first
person experience, but with comp we get a substitution level, and we
lost that connection below it.
> nor the quantum indeterminacy.
Those two things are apparently unrelated (although who knows, I
wouldn't be too surprised if it later turned out there was some sort
of connection),
Once you get the UDA you can bet that they are related, and AUDA
confirms with the math.
but the fact that some events have no cause and that in the real world
What do you mean by real world?
no complex system is 100% deterministic only makes what I said above
stronger.
>> all we can do is watch it and see; and as for the first person
expectation we've known for much much longer than 80 years that
often (perhaps usually) we don't know what we are going to do until
we do it.
> So when you put water on the gas, your theory to predict what you
will experience is just wait and see?
Read what I said again, I didn't say you can never know what you can
do next, I said you can't always know what you will do next, and
(perhaps) usually we don't.
But there are very different kind of indeterminacies, and the math of
each of them is different.
If comp and QM are correct, the QM indeterminacies is the
arithmetical FPI, that is why the comp + theories/definition becomes
testable.
The SWE becomes a theorem in arithmetic, concerning what universal
numbers can bet about the most probable universal numbers in some of
its universal neighbors.
But the relation with the Turing halting problem is more subtle, and
basically made explicit in the math part. You don't need it for
grasping the UDA. And I try to explain the basic math on this very list.
And there is no foolproof way to separate the times when we can
reliably make predictions from the times when we can not;
You make general statements without given your card. I still don't
know what is your theory. You seem to assume a primitive physical
universe, meaning that you seem we have to *assume* the physical
reality?
Keep in mind I don't make that assumption. Normally UDA shows that it
might be neither necessary, nor possible, when assuming comp.
In some theoretical situation, like in some experimental situation, we
can reason in the theory and predict facts, including, predicting
first person unpredictable experiences, in clear setting, and we can
develop the math.
With computer science/mathematical logic, we can study what indeed
such relative numbers can predict in the average.
If you find the FPI so easy that it belongs to the stone age, then
what are you waiting for step 4?
so even when we're making good prophecies we can't always be certain
that they are in fact good prophecies.
The end result of all this is that predicting is hard, especially
the future.
It is certainly hard for me to predict the time you will get at step
4, that's sure.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
