On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:40, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, when you wrote:
"...arithmetic ====> number's dreams =====> physics
OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one.
And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science..."
for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!)
"incoherent".
That entire unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist'
seems
overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short
with his remark that "first: we need an identification for whatever
we call: god".
He is right. We need some definition, or some semi-axiomatic. I have
often explained what I mean by the term "God". It is the
transcendental reality responsible for our consciousness, and
experiences. I can add typical axioms, like the fact that is has no
name, and that "shit happens" when we invoke it, etc.
The point of the discussion is that we might change the definition, in
different ways possible.
Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL
stuff we
may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them.
Well, in science, no conclusion is ever final, be it on God, the moon,
the boson or even the numbers. We can just hope people agrees enough
with a theory to be interested in its theorems.
Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism).
Yes, I think that science is agnostic on all ontological commitment,
beyond the terms it assumes for the need of solving a problem.
My idrentification for what many people call "god" is known to this
list:
"infinite complexity" - not better than anyone else's: it is MY
belief.
OK. No problem. Arithmetical truth is already infinitely complex, for
any machines, so with comp, your definition can satisfy the axioms
above, and the machines!
Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN
stuff,
Even Mammal stuff. Even Earthly creature. I fact, I am afraid we
borrow already all prejudices and limitations of the Löbian entities,
in fact of all finite (locally) machines ...
humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer
to some
universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to
our human ways
of thinking.
This might be just adjusted for John-Mikean thinking.
In fact it is because we adjust our theories that they can be shown
wrong, and then we change them.
You cannot use "human" to limit our knowledge a priori, or you just
show a prejudice against all humans.
All we, or any creature, can do, is to make clear the theory, and the
means to test it. If wrong we change it.
Only bad philosophers pretend to know the truth, or to have final
conclusion or solution.
Then I like to quote Chardin, saying that we are not human beings
having from time to time divine experiences, but we are divine beings
having from time to time human experiences.
Bruno
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience
(or whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is
elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science
(mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by
incompleteness).
True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is
based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes
from arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put:
arithmetic ====> number's dreams =====> physics
OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And
experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science.
Bruno
Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this
list.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> He did answer and did it correctly,
> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
I quote myself:
>>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to
the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything
about "the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will
repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does
Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?
>1 (I already answered this, note)
No you did not.
> from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.
How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
John Clark's answer: 7 billion.
How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth
right now?
Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right
now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their
1-view.
> Can you explain why you ask?
Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between
1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno
Marchal said "the first person experiences viewed from their first
person points of view" and it would greatly help John Clark
understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at
all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person
experiences views from their first person points of view existed
on planet Earth right now.
It is a simple question, what is the number?
In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6
such human 1-view.
In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.
OK?
This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am
duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow
exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views.
But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the
copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they
write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly
unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when
iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a
long enough time).
You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to
Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.
So what about step 7?
How do you predict "conceptually" the result of any physical
experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and
assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal
Dovetailer?
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
