On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:38, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno: All this does not define the natural numbers in the sense of a logical categorical definition. Why we understand them is a mystery, but we can meta-explained why that mystery is unsolvable. We don't need an infinity axiom in the ontology (indeed the axioms of the TOE is RA: no infinity axioms, not even induction axioms). But with comp at the meta-level, we do use infinity axioms at the epistemological level---or at least the creature generated by RA do that, and we interview them to retrieve the physical laws.

Richard: Could explain why the physical laws are not ontological.?


The laws of physics should emerge from the FPI on all sigma_1 truth. The intuitive certainty (Bp & Dt (& p)) gives indeed a quantization on the (true) sigma_1 sentences.

We get three arithmetical quantizations(*), so strictly speaking we get three type of physical reality.

The physical laws are not ontological because the theory assumes *any* universal system, and I use numbers, because people know them (but the proof of universality is not that simple).

This leads to the first person measure problem, and its solution should be the physical laws (by UDA). And the propositional physics found there is up to now not refuted by the facts. Too bad, we don't refute comp!

Bruno

(*), on p sigma_1, Bp & p, Bp & Dt, Bp & p & Dt). In those case we get p -> BDp, and can test a comparison with quantum logic(s).





On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 09 Dec 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/9/2013 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Dec 2013, at 01:33, LizR wrote:

On 9 December 2013 05:52, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness

Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being processed; if conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes at the end of a long line of "what is that?" questions, then after saying that there is just nothing more that can be said about it. And hey, it's just as good as a billion other consciousness theories.

Ah yes, Max Tegmark's "theory".These aren't theories, is the problem. One needs a rigorous definition of what consciousness is, to start with, and then a theory that explains all its observed features, and makes testable predictions. Otherwise all one has is a jumble of words.

To be precise, we don't need a definition of what consciousness is. WE need only to agree on some assertion on consciousness. It is the same with line and points. The same with natural numbers. We don't need to define them (in fact we can't). We need only to agree on axioms about them, and methods or rules of logical inference/deduction.

And we learn what are natural numbers in the same way, ostensively by one's mother holding up fingers and saying "one", "two",... And so we generalize and make a theory about fingers and other countable things. And we know that in all cases we run into we can add one more and so we casually assume an axiom of infinity because it is convenient and seems to cause no problems. But if it leads to paradoxes and absurdities...

All this does not define the natural numbers in the sense of a logical categorical definition. Why we understand them is a mystery, but we can meta-explained why that mystery is unsolvable. We don't need an infinity axiom in the ontology (indeed the axioms of the TOE is RA: no infinity axioms, not even induction axioms). But with comp at the meta-level, we do use infinity axioms at the epistemological level---or at least the creature generated by RA do that, and we interview them to retrieve the physical laws.

This is a point where I might be quick sometimes/

UDA start from comp, and at step 8, we should understand that the TOE is RA (or equivalent), and comp is replaced by the restriction to the sigma_1 sentences for the epistemology. So going from UDA to AUDA, comp passes from the base level to the metalevel. In AUDA we assume RA, and interview richer believer (like PA) as generated by RA (or equivalently the universal dovetailer). After UDA, we know that we dont need and cannot need anything more than

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

The comp philosophy is then translated entirely in term of definitions, and theorems in that theory.

Bruno




Brent

--
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- l...@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-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.


--
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.

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