On 17 Sep 2013, at 11:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 15 Sep 2013, at 10:37, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 14 Sep 2013, at 04:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:



<snip>

With computationalism, it is more easy and clear. What exists, at the
ontological level, is what make true a sentence like "ExP(x)". So number exists, once we assume arithmetic or combinators ..., because they make true Ex(x = x). And then (and only then), we can define different notions of epistemological existence, and they will be as many notion of existence as we have modalities (notably those coming from incompleteness, as they are unavoidable. They will make true proposition with the shape [] Ex [] P(x),
or []<> Ex [] <> P(x), etc...

Ok, nice. I'm slowly getting used to modal logic. It's a weird thing
to learn because it seems to require removing things from your thought
process rather than adding them (at least for me). It's hard because
it's simple.


That's the idea of math and logic. It is abstraction. it simplifies, indeed.







So we will get notions of psychological
existence, physical existence, etc.

Ok, but what is the computational substrate?

*any* first order logical specification of *any* turing universal system will do.

I suggest a very tiny part of arithmetic, but the S and K combinators will do as well, or the Unitary group, etc.






There is still a
dissatisfaction in having to just accept it. I guess one can go back
to the idea of God, in a way.

God created 0, and its successors, and then said to them add, and multiply.

All the rest is what emerge from a universal matrix of cohering Computations/dreams (1-computations, 3-computation) provably existing as a consequence of the addition and multiplication laws.

If you can believe that 17 is prime, independently of you, then you can understand, that, if you assume computationalism, arithmetic, as seen from different internal self-referential view, contains such "universal matrix", or the universal dovetailing or any sigma_1 complete set of number, or a Post creative set, a universal purpose computer, reflecting itself.

Arithmetic provides the block-mindscape. The existence and unicity of a block multiverse emerging from it is basically unsolved, nor even yet made enough precise.




It's just what is. But then this is an
ontological statement. Does this substrate exist? You can not use the
previous reasoning to support its existence, or can you?

I can't. I only justify why machines develop such beliefs, even for "good" (relatively correct for they local purpose in their probable history) reason. Just that the physical reality is not the fundamental reality. The physical reality is a complex self-referential sum made by a universal machine/number, and selected or varied through first person (sometimes plural) experiences.

There is no substrate (in that picture). Just dreams, or limit on computations, probably related to (Turing) Universal group, braids, as the empirical evidences suggest, but that is what we must recover from the machine looking inside (in different ways corresponding to the intensional variants, the arithmetical hypostases).






Even events seen in dreams get some
notion of existence, for example.

That's nice. I even have problems with statements like "batman doesn't
exist".

Really?

I will send you a video!


Doesn't he, in some sense?

Certainly, in many sense. He has "real" cousins, like jetman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=BE&v=x2sT9KoII_M


And certainly not, in some common sense.

Here, with comp, it is easy at the start, only 0, s(0), s(s(0), ... exist.

The rest will come from the many relationships the number inherits from the + and * laws. (+ the comp invariance of consciousness manifestation and experience for the digital substitution at some level). That gives the relative perceptions, the dreams, the beliefs, and (but only God knows), the truth.

If we don't recover common sense existence, we fail. But unless comp is false, why should it contradicts common sense? Thanks to Everett we do have evidence of sharable histories and stable first person scenarios. Comp get close to solipsism, but should avoid it. Comp will doubtfully change most of physics, no more than evolution can changed actual biology.



We cannot invite him for coffee but
we can talk about him and we all know what we're talking about.

No doubt.

I think that with comp you don't have to believe in anything more than the independence of the numbers' properties and relationships.

Plato's God is truth, and with comp, if sigma_1 truth is enough for the ontology, you need much more than the arithmetical truth, to get the inside view(s) and their mathematics.

Fortunately, this is reflected only on the first order extensions of the arithmetic hypostases. That has been worked out for G and G* by the Russian and Georgian logicians. See Boolos 1993 for this.


Best,


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 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to