On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,


On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. Space is completely a construction of our minds. There is no 3,1 dimensional Riemannian manifold out there. We measure events and our minds put those together into tableaux that we communicate about and agree on, because our languages, like formal logical system, force the results to obey a set of implied rules. We formulate explanations, formulate models and look for rules that the models might obey. Hopefully we can make predictions and measure something...

  I really really like Bruno's notion of an observer.

OK. Nice.



If only we could see eye to eye on the definitions of some other concepts... Such as that Computation is an *action* or transformation, not a static "being".


Why not take the opportunity of Church thesis? It provides the cleanest ever definition in math of an incredible epistemic notion "computability".

I don't have any problem with the Church thesis per se, I believe that it is half of the picture of that is going on. Remember I advocate a form of dualism (that of Vaughan Pratt), one that vanishes in the limit of infinite processes/systems into a neutral ground. The neutral ground obtains when we sum over all of the processes and streams and the directions of their arrows.



And computability is the most dynamic notion I can imagine.

I do not disagree, but computations require the co-existence of some form of physicality to implement them, even if the physicality is not primitive. In my thinking a physical world obtains from the interactions between observers. It is a "shared reality" that has no existence to observers that are not participants in that reality. (In my thinking there is no single all encompassing "reality" as such would have vanishing properties. Consider what an uncountable infinity of different observers may all have in common as 1p content. The intersection for an infinite set of observers is a null or empty set.)

You argue that my stipulation of a dualism is a violation of Occam's razor, ala Step 8 of UDA. I disagree, Occam's razon tells us that we must eliminate all *unnecessary* entities. My reasoning is that we need both logic and physics to have a viable comp theory.


Then you have to find a flaw in the UDA.
Please don't talk like if I was a philosopher. I am not. I provide something which is wrong, perhaps, but then you have to find the flaw. But it is a result, and it is only one step in formulating a problem. I don't argue for the truth of something, just the validity of a proof/ argument. And, yes, the problem, once formulated, give sthe obvious general (platonist) shape of the solution.



Numbers alone are like signs with no referents.

This is false, and even refuted by neurophysiology. the part of the brain handling the signs seems quite different from the parts of the brain handling the numbers. I think you confuse the sign used to denote the numbers with the numbers.





Why assume a primitive time, when both the physical time and the subjective time can be retrieved from the indexicals.

I do not assume or stipulate a primitive time.

I still don't know what you assume. Don't tell me "existence" as that means nothing.




All notions of time vanish in the limit just as the ability to distinguish properties vanishes in the same limit of the neutral ground. I cannot count things that I cannot distinguish nor can I see without eyes.

My ontology starts and ends with a undivided Whole with no particular properties of entities that make distinctions, so neither numbers, not time nor physical systems exist as primitives. All are co-emergent and co-defining.


How could anything emerge from such an amorphous and vague assumption?






Remember, I assume that Becoming is fundamental,


What does mean "becoming" without an assumption of time.




ala Heraclitus, as an axiom. You take AR as an axiom

No. I take elementary arithmetic as an axiom in the TOE. AR is just what we need to define computations in the UDA. It is assumed by all scientists.




and then have a lacuna (open problem as a result). I have no such a "arithmetic body" problem.

But that problem is what make comp non trivial, and it is what explains the origin of physics. It you don't have that problem, then you can no more derive physics, and have to assume it, as apparently you do in practice indeed. that is a weakness, not an advantage.




What I do have is a lack of formal theoretical expression of my hypothesis and for that you may beat me about the head and shoulders. I am still learning the math. :-)

Yes, thanks to Watson, Jacob and Monod, and then Gödel, I understood that reproduction, embryogenesis, admits very simple solution in math, and that is why I studied mathematics (cf my early paper "amoeba, planaria and dreaming machine". I have begun with mathematical biology. Theology has come later, and is based on the same treatment of the indexicals. Philosophy was not an option, because philosophy was (and still is, in some sense) authoritative marxism.





I don't need that hypothesis, and I think, modestly, that the UDA shows that we just can't use it to explain machine's subjective time and reality.

But you actually do need it, Bruno.

Then there is a flaw in UDA. Where?




The existence of the arithmetic body problem follows from the lack of that hypothesis!


UDA shows explicitly that by adding that hypothesis, things get only worse.




Additionally, you can discuss the UDA and we can argue about BECAUSE there is a fundamental Becoming.

Proof?




We do not need to assume particular measures or Hypostases other than 1) Existence cannot non-exist

That has no meaning for me, except a vague link with Parmenides and Descartes. But it is not the type of expression I expect in science. It is not precise enough. I can interpret it in myriad of ways.




and 2) Becoming is Fundamental.

That is only words.




When existence is dynamic instead of static ,

This assumes what I show an explanation for.



we can obtain all of the notions of statics from the equivalence classes, symmetry groups, automorphisms and fixed points and so forth.

But those are static to begin with. You explain the static from the static.




Consider Heraclitus' River where the level of the water never changes nor any other feature that you can detect remotely. Is it flowing or is it still?

I appreciate you like comp, but you are not yet pushing the logic far enough.

I am! I am dealing with problems that you refuse to see!

You formulate the problem, but you take a problem as a defect, when a problem is what make a work into science. You seem to advocate bad philosophy here, I'm afraid. like Bergson, you prevent your own understanding of a *result* (not something debatable, but graspable or refutable). You seem not aware that I am not doing philosophy.

Bruno






Bruno






On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:22 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:19, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com > wrote:
Dear LizR,

Yeah, Zeno didn't know about calculus... I was speaking to the idea that "time moves". It doesn't, there is nothing to move. It is not an object that can be observed. We can measure measures of time: duration, sequence and energy. It is amazing how our minds can create "things" out of ideas that are not even true.

I agree that time doesn't move. And "motion in space-time" doesn't make sense either. Motion in space, however...


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:09 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 January 2014 13:55, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com > wrote:
Dear Edgar,

Bingo! You are correct. All motion in space-time is an illusion. The ancient greeks figured that out already.

You mean Zeno? But he didn't know about the maths of infinity... :)

(Just an aside. You're correct of course that time doesn't move. Time is what is used to measure movement through space, after all, so what could the movement of time be measured in relation to?)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”


--
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- l...@googlegroups.com.
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 a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”


--
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- l...@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 a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”


--
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.

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.

Reply via email to