On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> snip >> >> Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person >> view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered >> sequence of states. Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a >> conscious experience without time. Maybe this is the result of some >> computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts >> on it. >> >> >> Hmm.... Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but >> once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I >> made concerning some salvia experiences. >> >> Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from >> the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. >> >> I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from >> the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of >> view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. >> >> Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. >> Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. >> Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, >> as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot >> do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience >> as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, >> from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to >> conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. >> >> That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the >> experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an >> experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some >> amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and >> completely impossible to described. >> >> Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be >> lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: >> hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame >> to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, >> the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, >> links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). >> >> So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience >> which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and >> eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state >> of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles >> me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth >> might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be >> even more closer to "religion" than what the simple machine's theology can >> suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication >> which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, >> like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root >> for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia >> quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further >> explorations ... >> >> > Bruno, > From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently > dynamic > > > From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware > arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one). > > > > and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. > > > This is unclear. What do you mean? > > Ah, you explain below. > > > > > That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no > computations happening. It's a static block universe. > Is that possible? > > > The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor > relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is > only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. > > So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is given > by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the > additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers > (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). > > That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't attribute > consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point > against this). > > Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics > appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a > machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp & Dt) , > know (Bp & p), observe (Bp & Dt & p), feel (Bp & Dt & p) themselves > relatively to their most probable computations. > > You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a > confusion between two of those "number's points of view". > I would even say that the *theological* errors comes from confusion > between those points of view, and their "star extension", when translated > in G*. > > Incompleteness not only forces the division between truth and provable, > captured by the star extensions, but it forbids to the correct or sound > machine/numbers to confuse the hypostases. > > Subjective time appears in Bp & p, and in Bp & p & Dt, (and in B^n p & > p & D^m t. If n < m, then we get a corresponding quantization, so the > arithmetical quantizations are graded, and I hope to find some arithmetical > Temperley Algebra there ..., that would be a path in the explanation of > some physical space) > > Physical time? Open problem. > > The 3p is a block reality, which does not even refer to any notion of time > or space, or consciousness, or whatever. > > But from the average 1p discourses of machines relatively implemented (in > the computer science sense) in that arithmetical reality, taking into > account the FPI (by the "& Dt", actually) and the first person (and its > umbilical link with truth, by the "& p") you can see or understand that > from inside things are quite dynamical, and full of sense. The > consciousness of the sense might be a semantical fixed point. Universal > numbers are windows through which the Arithmetical Reality can explore > Itself. The price is that it can lost itself and get tricked in infinitely > many ways. > > To sum up the 3p reality is certainly a sort of block reality, but the > many 1p realities, naturally associated to the 3p arithmetization of > meta-arithmetic (Gödel) and its Theaetetus variants (the points of view), > are dynamical, and full of qualia (accepting standard properties of them). > > Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality contains an universal > 1p-reality itself., which makes not much sense to me though, but if that > was the case, the "whole truth" would plausibly be the initial > consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many > universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a brain > really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness. I > am still struggling on this. I made allusion to this with the notion of > Galois connection, which exists between theories and models, name and > things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p-person, etc. > Bruno: Here is where my string cosmology model has an advantage. As you know I think the particles of space that precipitate out of 4D-spacetime, are like monads in that they reflect or perceive or are conscious of all other monads (in string theory either because they are a BEC or use r->1/r duality-mapping, or both). My hypothesis is that they are also all distinct and perhaps even enumerable, and hypothetically capable of computing the Arithmetic Reality including consciousness, which of course would include a "3p reality [that] contains an universal 1p-reality itself, corresponding to your Arithmetic Person. "It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness." which is also an aspect of my string cosmology that makes consciousness more fundamental than I believe comp does. Since Godel required transverse of 57 levels to get his theorems, I conjecture that the simple basic monads form composites and finally Lobian entities at the higher levels. You may not be interested, but I presume that you can verify or falsify that conjecture using mathematical logic.. > > What is sure, even provable and proved by machines like PA or ZF, is that > there are many Löbian entities, much closer to truth than themselves, which > might in some circumstances quite well approximate Truth, in a way "faking" > all machines. An example is "true in all transitive models of ZF" (a model > is transitive if it owns all the elements of its sets). Using comp, and > working on simple correct machines, we can extract a lot from mathematical > logic. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 [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. > -- 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.
