On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:26:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Oct 2013, at 06:56, Pierz wrote:
Then the reasoning shows (at a meta-level, made possible with the
assumption used) how consciousness and beliefs (more or less
deluded) in physical realities develop in arithmetic.
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:46:17 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal
Are 'beliefs in' physical realities the same as experiencing the
realism of public physics though? For instance, I believe that if I
should avoid driving recklessly in the same way as I would in a
driving game as I would in my actual car. Because my belief that the
consequences of a real life collision are more severe than a game
collision, I would drive more conservatively in real life. That's
all ok, but a belief about consequences would not generate realistic
qualia. If someone held a gun to my head while I play the racing
game, the game would not become any more realistic. I always feel
like there is an equivalence between belief and qualia which is
being implied here that is not the case. It's along the lines of
assuming that a hypnotic state can fully replace reality. If that
were the case, of course, everybody would be lining up to get
hypnotized.There is some permeability there, but I think it's
simplistic to imply that the aggregate of all qualia arises purely
from the arbitrary tokenization of beliefs.
Unless the tokenization is made explicit, and then your nuance should
be catured by the nuance between (Bp & Dt, inteeligible matter) and
(Bp & Dt & p, sensible matter).
But that's the mathematical (arithmetical) part. In UDA it is just
shown that if comp is true (an hypothesis on consciousness) then
physics is a branch of arithmetic. More precisely a branch of the
ideally self-referentially correct machine's theology. (always in
the Greek sense).
There is no pretense that comp is true, but if it is true, the
correct "QM" cannot postulate the wave, it has to derive the wave
from the numbers. That's what UDA shows: a problem. AUDA (the
machine's interview) provides the only path (by Gödel, Löb, Solovay)
capable of relating the truth and all machine's points of view.
There will be many ways to extract physics from the numbers, but
interviewing the self-introspecting universal machine is the only
way to get not just the laws of physics, but also why it can hurt,
and why a part of that seems to be necessarily not functional.
I don't think that an interview with anyone can explain why they can
hurt, unless you have already naturalized an expectation of pain. In
other words, if we don't presume that universal machine experiences
anything, there is no need to invent qualia or experience to justify
any mathematical relation. If mathematically all that you need is
non-functional, secret kinds of variable labels to represent machine
states, I don't see why we should assume they are qualitative. If
anything, the unity of arithmetic truth would demand a single
sensory channel that constitutes all possible I/O.
But then you get zombies, which make no sense with comp. But you are
right, I have to attribute consciousness to all universal machines, at
the start. That consciousness will be a computer science theoretical
semantical fixed point, that is something that the machine can "know",
but cannot prove ("know" in a larger sense than the Theaetetus'
notion, it is more an unconscious bet than a belief or proof). (Cf
also Helmholtz, and the idea that perception is a form of
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.