On 26 Sep 2013, at 14:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Not at all. The prediction must be based on the precise math of
number's imagination.
But how could flavor be predicted by any math? What would be the
point also? If you have mathematical encodings which are represented
as molecules, why would there be any flavor required. The molecules
of your olfactory bulbs just read the codes and update the registers
of the olfactory system without ever conjuring a 'flavor'.
The math can explain why things of the type "flavor" can be expected
from the machine self-referential points of view.
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.
It's still only a theory of Turing equivalence, which doesn't
include any epistemic access to the question of what lies beyond.
Epistemic access is explained by the self-reference ability of the
universal numbers.
Which is the same ability which would make all aesthetic
presentation superfluous and redundant.
This seems to me to be a common error made by many reductionists. It
is not because something is emergent that it does not exist, or is
redundant.
Addition and multiplication do not make prime numbers redundant, nor
their distribution trivial.
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.
If it could be reduced, then why wouldn't it be? It's still a
dualism of that which is computation and that which can be reduced
from computation. The question is, where does computation inflate
itself to in the first place?
Computations exist, like prime number exists. It is not dualism, it
is elementary math derivation. Then we get an octalism (and many
dualism) in the epistemology of the universal numbers.
Computations may not exist so much as they can be extracted
analytically from certain things which exist. Flavor exists. We can
count flavors, but we can't flavor accounting.
Again (see just above).
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.
But we already know they are misleading, otherwise there would be
no dualism concept to begin with.
?
We know that there are no kitchens in the brain cooking up blueberry
muffins when we remember the smell of blueberry muffins.
Well ... Exactly, but this seems to make my point.
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.
