On Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:55:00 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Sep 2013, at 22:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:53:19 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: >> >> You are saying there is no cosmos without people??? >> >> Well anyway you pointed out the arithmetic and logic >> necessary for the cosmos to evolve people >> and I thank you for that. >> > > I think that Bruno uses 'people' in a futuristic sense, which assumes comp > is true and that we collectively understand that we ourselves as 'people' > are defined by infinite computations, therefore all incidences of infinite > computation are 'people', even if they are non-biological. > > > > Almost. people are more higher level than that. They appear through the > infinite computations, but people are not infinite computation, no more > than they are brains, or bodies. >
That doesn't really seem like it can claim to be Comp though. People are not Turing emulable, they are meta-computational essences which are granted by grace. Craig > > Bruno > > > > Craig > > >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> >>> On 25 Sep 2013, at 16:29, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> Bruno: "Imagined by people supported by infinities of computations. But >>> the imagination is reduced itself to arithmetical relations (even finite >>> one, now), so it is a monism." >>> >>> Richard: Are you saying that without people there cannot be comp? I >>> would prefer a more cosmic machine as in http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Where does such cosmos come from? You start from what I show we have to >>> derive (from arithmetic, which you assume too). >>> >>> Without people, there is no arithmetic, because arithmetic implies >>> (logically) the existence of people (and with comp they are conscious). >>> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 25 Sep 2013, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:58:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24 Sep 2013, at 20:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, September 23, 2013 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> shape belongs to the category of numbers imagination, and with comp >>>>>> this is given by arithmetical relations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Numbers imagination seem like human imagination to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nice. That is a reason for taking number's talk seriously. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I had more of 'numbers imagination = pathetic fallacy' meaning in mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> OK, but then you beg the question, and just repeat: I believe that comp >>>> is wrong, without explaining why. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It is not. What is important is to not impose certainties on other. >>>>>> To make clear what we assume. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's what I am trying to do - make clear what you assume. If you >>>>> start out granting numbers imagination, then you have already have >>>>> consciousness, and have no need for comp. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course. Comp is an assumption concerning consciousness and >>>>> computations. Then the *conclusion* is that the theory of everything is >>>>> elementary arithmetic. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Buy everything that is not obviously elementary arithmetic can just be >>>> presumed to be part of numbers imagination. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, you have to do the math and verify that it predicts correctly what >>>> we see. Up to now, comp predicts the MW, with a quantum structure, and a >>>> core symmetrical structure (but we have not yet really its linear aspect, >>>> nor the measure istelf, etc.). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comp is not a theory of everything, >>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed. It is a philosophical or theological principle or assumption. >>>> Then, if we make that assumption, the theorem is that the theory of >>>> everything is given by arithmetic or anything Turing equivalent. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> its a dualism of everything computational vs everything imagined by >>>> computations. >>>> >>>> >>>> Imagined by people supported by infinities of computations. But the >>>> imagination is reduced itself to arithmetical relations (even finite one, >>>> now), so it is a monism. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you can get a set of variables with unknown values, but why >>>>>> would they have a smell or sound? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because if they didn't, you would die when saying "yes" to the doctor. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you would. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because you assume non-comp, but I still don't see why. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Because flavors exist, but comp has no reason to imagine them. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, the one saying "yes" to the doctor does have a reason to hope for >>>> it, and he can hope that the evidences (the Turing emulability of >>>> biophysical known object) are not misleading. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The truth or falsity of comp is out of my topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am interested only in the refutability of comp. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That may already be biasing the evaluation of comp beyond repair. >>>>> Consciousness is not about refutability, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Doing a precise theory is about making a refutable theory. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Depends if the theory is about consciousness or not. Consciousness can >>>> only be a baseless assertion. It is the base of all assertion and the >>>> assertion of all bases. >>>> >>>> >>>> You assume consciousness to be fundamental, and matter. That is >>>> coherent with your non-comp theory, but is not an argument against comp. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> it is about perceiving and participating. Refutability is a second >>>>> order logic derived from that. If you use the weak standard of >>>>> refutability, then you cannot be surprised when we take a puppet for a >>>>> person. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can hardly be surprised, because that is mainly what I assume. >>>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRluXBa4e8 >>>> >>>> >>>> Cute, but not quite convincing for the present topic. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/<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-li...@**googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>> Visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/<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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > 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.
