On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:20, Edgar Owen wrote:

Bruno,Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Realityfrom the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results youare trying to impose on reality.

`See previous answer to this. Church thesis makes computations as solid`

`as numbers, and those does not depend on humans at all, or show me the`

`dependence (and define "humans").`

My approach is to closely examine reality

`Physical reality, mathematical reality, arithmetical reality? They all`

`kicks back.`

and then try to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rulesand structures are.I would probably agree with much of what you say, if you were sayingit about human logico-mathematical structures, but the logico-mathematical structure of reality is not bound by human rules.

That's my point.

It runs according to its own logic and science is the process oftrying to figure out what those rules are and how they work...

`For this we have to agree on some "independent truth". Mine are simple`

`and precise; basically logic + the axiom of elementary arithmetic.`

For example, reality is clearly a computational process,

That is refuted by the UDA.

and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuffof the universe. There is simply no other way current informationstates of reality could result from previous ones other than by acomputational process.

`Some solution of differential equation can be non computable. then`

`with comp, some physical facts emerge in a non computable manner.`

How that computational process works must be determined by examiningreality itself.

`How could we examine reality itself. We measure numbers and`

`correlation between some of those numbers, the rest is in big parts in`

`our (real) imagination.`

We may try to make sense of it in terms of traditional human maththeory, but when there are differences then reality always trumpshuman math theory, which applies to human math rather than reality'slogico-mathematical system.

`You seem to be anti-realist in math. This means comp should not even`

`have any sense. I am not sure what you mean by "computational". I use`

`it in its standard sense of Turing computable. I delete "Turing" using`

`Church Turing thesis.`

Bruno

Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:52, Edgar Owen wrote:All,The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in myrecent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name.Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just ofnumbers (math)Arithmetic is not just numbers, but numbers + some laws (additionand multiplication).but is a running logical structure analogous to softwareWhen you have the laws (addition and multiplication), it can beshown that a tiny part of arithmetic implement all possiblecomputations (accepting Church thesis). Without Church thesis, youcan still prove that that tiny part of arithmetic emulates(simulate exactly) all Turing (or all known) computations.that continually computes the current state of the universe.You mean the physical universe. Have you read my papers or posts?if we are machine, there is no physical reality that we can assume.the whole of physics must be derived from arithmetic.Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers andmath, so does reality.It depends on your initial assumption.In fact the equations of physical science make sense only whenembedded in a logical structure just as is the case incomputational reality.The computational reality is a tiny part of arithmetic. Logic isjust a tool to explore such realities.Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of realityis mathematical,Most scientists do not believe this, and indeed criticize my workfor seeming to go in that direction.Then term like "reality" and "mathematical" are very fuzzy.Now, if we are machine, then it can be shown that for the ontologywe need arithmetic, or any equivalent Turing universal system, andwe *cannot* assume anything more (that is the key non obviouspoint). Then, it is shown that the physical reality is:1) an internal aspect of arithmetic2) despite this, it is vastly bigger than arithmetic and even thatany conceivable mathematics. That is why I insist that the realitywe can access to is not mathematical, but "theological". Itcontains many things provably escaping all possible sharablemathematics.That arithmetic is (much) bigger viewed from inside than viewedfrom outside is astonishing, and is a sort of Skolem paradox (not acontradiction, just a weirdness).that prevents science from grasping the complete nature ofreality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, andthe mathematics is just a subset of the logic.I disagree, with all my respect. Even arithmetic escapes logic. Itis logic which is just a branch of math, but math, even justarithmetic, escapes logic. Arithmetical truth escapes all effectivetheories (theories with checkable proofs).After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that allof reality is mathematical,I really do not believe this. Except for Tegmark and Schmidhuber, Idoubt any scientist believes this. But its is a consequence ofcomputationalism, for the ontology. Yet, the physical is purelyepistemological, and go beyond mathematics. I show that alluniversal machine, when believeing in enough induction axioms, candiscovered this by introspection only.has had nothing useful to say about the nature of eitherconsciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamentalaspects of experience.I suggest you read my sane paper.: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.htmlIt explains the present moment by using GĂ¶del form of indexical(with explicit fixed points), including the non communicable part,the qualia, and also the quanta (making computationalism testable).In fact machines have already an incredibly rich and complextheology, and it is testable, as it should contain physics.However I present a computational based information approach tothese in my book among many other things.The second clarification that needs to be made to the post onMarchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from theactual math and logic that computes reality.With computationalism, reality is not computed. Most of thearithmetical reality is already highly not computable.The (partially) computable part of arithmetic is the sigma_1 part(the sentences having the shape ExP(x) with P decidable). Abobe itis no more computable.The whole of the arithmetical reality is the union of all thesigma_i and pi_i parts, and is far beynd what we can compute oremulate with a computer.The the human arithmetic and arithmetic are well distinguished inmy presentations, so I am not sure to what you allude too.For computation, Church thesis makes it a *very* general humanindependent notion.The human version is a generalized and extended approximation ofthe actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematicalstructure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities andinfinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality).You seem to assume a primitive physical universe. ("primitive"means that it would have to be assumed).I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can readabout it in my book...I might take a look, but, with all my respect, I am not sure yougrasp modern logic, as you seem to confuse computation, logic, andmath, and to confuse digital physics (there is a physical realityand it is computable) with computationalism (3-I is a machine),which entails that physics emerges from computations in a noncomputable way. Do you take into account the First personindeterminacy? This is not well known, but is really the basicblock needed to see why the physical reality emerges non computablyfrom very elementary computable arithmetic. Let me insist on thatfundamental point: If my body can be emulated by a machine, thenneither mind nor matter appearance can be entirely emulable by amachine.Above our comp substitution level, we are confronted withenumerable sets of universal numbers, and below the substitutionlevel, we are confronted with a continuum of different computationsinvolving all universal numbers simultaneously. In fact the problemof comp relies in the justification of the apparent computabilityof the known physical laws (the white rabbit problem).Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.