On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the
concept of prime numbers.
Show me the dependence.
I think you confuse the human math, with math. "17 is prime" is
defined without mentioning any humans. It just means that you cannot
divide the line IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII in two or more smaller lines so as
to make a rectangle.
That's human not Reality math.
It seems more real than humans to me. I can conceive a physical
reality without human, but I cannot conceive any reality where 17 is
not prime. If you can do that, please explain.
The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a
prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is
prime or not.
What do you mean by "reality". It looks like "physical reality", but
with comp it is still an open problem to describe completely that
physical reality appearance. We cannot invoke it as a primitive in an
argument.
You said that God = reality. I agree with this, but only because
"reality" share with "God" the fact that we cannot invoke it in
argument, nor even define it, etc.
The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example
one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle
properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply
keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and
rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the
dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are
not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental
level so there is no need for infinitesimals.
?
Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says
anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a
single example. Can you?
But without the notion of prime number, arithmetic makes no sense at.
And with comp we have to explain the physical from the arithmetical.
Even if in the physical, prime numbers play no role, that would not
invalidate the fact that physics emerges from arithmetic.
All human doctors ARE digital.
I meant digitalist doctor. Some doctor can be opposed to comp.
They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence....
You state "Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable,
nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this." This doesn't
compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why....
Read the first part of the sane2004 paper, and tell me what you don't
understand. may be you could tell me if you can conceive (if only for
the sake of the argumentation) that you might survive, in the usual
clinical sense, with an artificial computer-brain-body?
It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality
and thus the product of computations in mind.
Church thesis makes the notion of computable into an non epistemic
very solid mathematical notion.
Finally you state "But to define computation, you need to be realist
on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable
arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist."
Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the
computational system of reality to which they don't apply.
It is human math bearing on universal, non human, truth. The
definition of "intuitively computable" invoke humans, but the thesis
of Church, Post, Turing makes it independent of human. Indeed with
comp you can substitute human by "universal (Löbian) numbers".
Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how
much you try it still runs.
Unless it stops, of course. here you are the one seeming to accept
that a software run or stops independently of human, but this
contradicts what you say above.
Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it
can't run.
?
the math shows that reality, viewed by machines or numbers, is beyond
computation and numbers.
Bruno
Eppur si muove!
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to
include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality
is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of
reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from
the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things
(generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't
real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world).
While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily
life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of
reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are
both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the
example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real
as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the
reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information
computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain.
The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and
therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a
computationally evolving information state in reality and that is
why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is,
what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for
everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical'
events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of
course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience
is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally
evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds.
Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality
includes everything that exists without exception, including
thoughts and theories.
But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists
independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In
fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized
information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a
generalized quantum vacuum.
This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within
it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is
what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical)
space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in
which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving
information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in
the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the
logical space or locus of reality and actuality.
Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that
exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within
it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside.
Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or
not part of reality. There is only the different categories of
reality of different information forms within reality.
Edgar
--
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.
