On Friday, September 27, 2013 9:47:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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. > > What things of the type "flavor" are there though, other than flavor? I don't think that drawing a box where 'flavor type things' should go will have any effect in generating the presence of flavor.

## Advertising

> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> 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. > Emergence is not the reason why self-reference ability of the universal numbers makes presentation redundant. It's redundant because there is no plausible reason for presentation to emerge in the first place, given the fact of epistemic coherence on demand. It would be like installing cameras and monitors on networked computers so that they could also see each other. Such cameras would be redundant and would never plausible emerge from network connectivity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> 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). > Next time your sun in law wants some steak, I'll tell him that math lets him expect 'things of the type steak "flavor" instead. That should be a good match for his mathematically expected 'things of the type "want"'. > > > > > >>> > >>> 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. > This is the same odd leap that you make with incompleteness. Wherever we can reason that logic, measurement, or arithmetic is not sufficient to describe reality,. you seem to conclude that must mean that reality must be hidden within arithmetic...that it is our access to reality which is incomplete in that it fails to reveal the totality of arithmetic imagination. It's a fun line of thinking, but it is not the universe that we live in. Where we live, numbers always exist as an experience or a group of bodies, never as independent beings. Where we live, measurement and countability does not have an agenda of its own, to the contrary, automation is about making that which we do not wish to be aware of unconscious to us. In this case, common sense is justified in its intuition that the shortcomings of measurement stem from their reductionist sampling of reality - the digitization which amputates all that has not been selected for. Certainly it is arithmetic itself rather than our appreciation of arithmetic which is incomplete. When we try it your way, we turn arithmetic into Santa and take a bath in the pathetic fallacy. Craig > > 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.