On 04 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Pierz,It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Presentmoment and Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact theyare basic aspects of reality.Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just whatis mathematically describable.Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since itscomputed.Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure butnot all of that logic is mathematical operations.

`Logic is a branch of mathematics. Roughly, any other branch is`

`equivalent with logic (usually classical, but not always) + the non`

`logical supplementary axioms.`

`For applied mathematics, we usually relate the axiom with facts that`

`we infer (or believe in for any reason), assuming some reality (to`

`which the axioms and consequence are supposed to be applied).`

`For example, we all have a good intuition of the structure (N, +, *),`

`and we can axiomatize it by classical logic (= a set of axioms and`

`inference rules) + the supplementary axioms, in the language of first`

`order logic, with variables, with equality, union {0, s, +, *}:`

0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

`If you accept Church thesis, computability is a purely mathematical`

`notion. Even an arithmetical notion, which means that you can define`

`it in that {0, s, +, *} language, and already prove something in that`

`theory. In fact that theory is "universal" with respect to`

`computability. It is a full complete programming language. It is not`

`complete with respect to provability, as no effective theory can be,`

`by Gödel incompleteness.`

`Not all reality is mathematical, indeed. This can be proved in the`

`weak comp theory I work on. The first person notion that we can`

`associate to machine escapes in some sense the "mathematical". But`

`that escape itself is mathematical. Mathematics cannot prove the`

`existence of something non mathematical, but it can prove that comp`

`entails the existence of some machine's attribute which are non`

`mathematically definable by the machine, yet "real" from the machine's`

`point of view.`

`I propose an argument showing that IF your consciousness is invariant`

`for a substitution of your "brain" at some description level, (or any`

`finite 3p description you want) by a digital computer, THEN a weak`

`form of computationalism is incompatible with a weak form of`

`physicalism. This can be used to reduce the mind-body problem to a`

`problem of justifying the beliefs in a physical reality by the average`

`universal number/machine. (I identify machines with their number`

`indice in some fixed universal enumeration).`

`I am agnostic about the existence of a primitive physical reality, but`

`"atheist" with respect to this when working in the computationalist`

`theory.`

`I have still no idea of what you assume. You seem to assume some`

`physical or psychological computational space, which makes not sense`

`to any ideally correct introspecting machines relatively to its most`

`probable universal implementations and neighbors. The + and * laws`

`above describe already the unique possible computational space, by the`

`Church-Turing-Post thesis/law. By its big but subtle redundancies, it`

`defines in arithmetic a "matrix" of "dreams" (computations seen in the`

`1p view), and the physical and psychological realities develop from`

`there, in a relative indexical way. Computationalism can exploit`

`computer science and mathematical logic to justify such proposition,`

`even constructively, making the comp theory falsifiable (up to some`

`technical nuances).`

`Many physicists assume (not always consciously) a primitive physical`

`reality. Do you? It seems you said that you do not, but then how you`

`define term like moment, time, present moment, etc. And from what? It`

`looks like you take for granted some hybrid 1p and 3p notions.`

`You seem also to assume special relativity? What does that mean if you`

`don't assume some physics?`

`You talk often about something you call reality. Is not reality`

`exactly what we are searching and what we should not taken for granted?`

`In "science" we start from what we agree on, if only momentarily, and`

`proceed. If not, there is no genuine attempt to communicate.`

`I hope you will succeed in clarifying your assumptions. I have still`

`no idea of your basic ontology. Keep in mind that with Church Thesis,`

`or with any known formal definitions, computation is a purely`

`arithmetical notion. You might keep in mind also that the arithmetical`

`reality is vastly greater than the computable reality, but both`

`interact/interfere in many relative ways.`

Bruno

Edgar On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:04:17 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:It's hard to stop arguing with an irrational person, isn't it? I'vealready offered Edgar $100 to tell me any experiment that could becarried out to falsify or validate his "theory" (that two separatedevents occur in only one absolute order), but he immediately stoppedtalking to me. An unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory.And Edgar even admits his idea can't be rendered in mathematics("like consciousness"). But *everything* in physics must be able tobe rendered into numbers, or it just ain't physics. That's not thesame as saying that only the quantifiable exists, but it doesdemarcate a clear boundary between physics and metaphysics.When Galileo showed theologians the mountains on the moon throughhis telescope, which "couldn't exist" according to doctrine at thetime, because the moon had to be a perfect sphere, they invented adhoc an "invisible substance" that filled all the craters to theexact tops of the mountains. Galileo agreed about the invisiblesubstance, but said it was piled twice as high on top of themountains as in the valleys! The invention of an ad hoc invisible,unmeasurable, unfalsifiable time dimension to rescue the universalpresent moment from relativity is a similarly disgraceful manouevreto that which the cardinals attempted in order to rescue theirAristotelian cosmos.So far the only evidence that Edgar can evince for his theory isthat it's obvious to him. No maths. No suggested experiments. Nomeans of measurement except by some hand-waving reference to thecurvature of the universe (quote: "anyone know what that equationwould be?" Sir, we have no idea what you're talking about! It's*your* theory!) No falsification possible except by fiat of EdgarOwen. Don't hold your breath.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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 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.