On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. >> 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 email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.