# Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

```
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:```
```
```
Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this work?
```

```
In the UDA we assume a "Turing universal", or "sigma_1-complete" physical reality, in some local sense. We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical reality). Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp, we are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that such "primitiveness" cannot solve the mind-body problem when made into a dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness.
```
```
Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all assumptions above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic).
```
```
The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is derived from basically just
```
Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

or just

x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x

```
Idea-wise, Wolfram and Von Neumann's cellular automata, also known as programs.
```
I cannot parse this sentence.

```
I am not saying there is a programmer (like Herr Doctor Scmidhuber has pondered) but there seems to be a pre-existing program, producing your Arithmetic.
```

?

```
I assume arithmetic. No more than any scientists. I define programs in arithmetic. I don't define arithmetic in programs.
```
```
We need to assume a sigma_1 complete reality, as we cannot get them from less. But to reason further, and extracts the big bangs from arithmetic, we need to define in RA, the notion of observers, reason, and this is done in the usual mathematical manner, which happens, for computer science, to be entirely build in term of numbers relations and functions, some describable, some not, in arithmetical sentences.
```

```
```Platonism is great,
```
```

```
Platonism is a theorem in arithmetic, once you bet that it exists a level of description of yourself where you are Turing emulable.
```
```
But the arithmetical realism used by comp is a far weaker hypothesis: it is just the hypothesis that the elementary closed arithmetical sentences, like Ex(x+1=2), are true, or false. It is assumed by 99,9999% of scientists.
```
```
This is very important spudboy, I am just a humble logician which says that if you believe that you can survive with a digital brains (physical, if you want), then physics becomes a sub-branch of computer science, which is already (although not so well known) a branch of number theory.
```
```
Mechanism has been a long time ally to materialism, but the discovery of the universal machine illustrates that mechanism is more an ally of the "question to king Milinda" or to Neoplatonism.
```

```
but I am doubtful that the magic of self organization can come up with forms all on its own.
```

It cannot happen from just logic and addition.
It cannot happen from just logic and multiplication.
It happens from the conjunction of logic, addition and multiplication.

```
Before the chicken came the animal that preceded the chicken-maybe a raptor, forget the egg.
```
```
The comp TOE, isolated through UDA and the AUDA, assumes the less. The TOE is already taught in elementary school. I have never heard one parent complaining of any form of brainwashing, or propaganda when taught in elementary mathematical propositions, so I think that doubting arithmetical realism is just obscurantist obstructive type of bad faith, and it hides the fact that comp leads to Platonism, in the philosophical or metaphysical, or theological, sense.
```
```
I am a scientist. I put the assumption on the table. They are quite weak, and I reason from there.
```
```
You seem to ignore the relations between computer science and arithmetic, but this is standard in theoretical computer science. You seem to assume a primitive physical universe, but the UDA shows that this does not even make sense, in case the comp substitution level exist.
```
```
You need to convince yourself by following the reasoning, and study a bit of computer science. A tiny part of the arithmetical reality contains the whole of the computable, and the arithmetical reality is vaster as it "knows" about the termination or non termination of algorithm or class of algorithms, etc. The observers are emulated in that tiny parts of arithmetic, but what is true about them and about their experiences extends the whole arithmetical, the whole analytical, and even quite plausibly/arguably the whole mathematical (in the current sense of mathematical).
```
```
I am not proposing anything new, just pointing on the incompatibility between mechanist and materialist cognitive sciences, and showing how computer science translates the mind-body problem into a body belief problem in arithmetic. The conversation with the LĂ´bian machine is just the beginning of the solution, in the most ideal case.
```
Bruno

```
```

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

```
Your theory comes from Von Neumann, and Chaitin, and Wolfram, does it not, Edgar? That everything is a program or cellular automata, and "in the beginning was a program." Following along, what is this Logic comprised of (sort of like SPK's query) is it electrons, is it virtual particles, is it field lines? Where doth the logical structure sleep? In Planck Cells? I apologize if my questions annoy, but where is the computer network that computes the current state of the universe.
```
```
In the arithmletical reality which probably emulates all computations (in the standard sense of computer science).
```
```
But the Wolfram theory is incorrect, as it assumes comp, and don't take the FPI into account (nor even the quantum one).
```
Bruno

```
Can we get MIT physicist Seth Lloyd to shake a stick or a laser pointer, or otherwise, display, where this abacus dwells?
```
Thanks,
Mitch
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>
Sent: Sun, Dec 22, 2013 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

Dear Edger,

Where does the "fire" come from that animates the "logic"?

On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,

```
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
```
```
Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality.
```
```
Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things.
```
```
The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality).
```
```
I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book...
```
Edgar Owen

--
```
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.

--
```
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