On 03 Jan 2014, at 19:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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.
It seems to assume a physical reality. But this won't work for the
comp mind-body problem. We have to extract physics from computer
science, that is Arithmetic.
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.
How do you define a string without assuming arithmetic? It is a bit
trivial to extract the simple (addition and multiplication) from the
complex (string theory). Assulming comp I am supposed to have shown
that we must to the contrary: extract strings, or the right physics,
from comp and arithmetic.
You might need to formalize your approach to see that clearly.
"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.
We see that through evolution and biology.
You may not be interested, but I presume that you can verify or
falsify that conjecture using mathematical logic..
You might have the right physics, but we can know that only by
isolating if from arithmetic, without any further assumption.
Advantage: the G/G* distinction explain how to distinguish what the
machine can justify rationally, and she can't.
Bruno
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 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.
