On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It
only seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there
and subject to our inspection from the outside. As if we are God
or something... This very idea is the problem, there is no God's
eye view that can map faithfully to any 1p view we might have.
In which theory?
It is an assumption that is smuggled into science and math. An
unjustified extension of the 1p to cover all of the universe.
Laplace's Demon is a good example of this.
That does not give a theory.
I am not attempting to define a formal theory.
I don't ask for a formal theory. A clear theory would be enough at
first.
I am looking for the ontological ideas and assumptions; those things
that are believed to be true - like axioms but informal ones- that
go into the thinking.
yes, informal axiom; but not just one word, especially "existence",
which has no meaning per se. It looks like "god".
In the case of Laplace, it was assumed that it was possible for an
entity to exist that would have the entire universe laid out before
it in its full spatial and temporal extent.
OK. Like in QM, except that we get a full multiverse. The block
multiverse, so to speak.
We know a few more facts than did Laplace.
Only that we are multiple. But the 3p picture is the same.
The speed of light is finite, the energy of interactions is
quantized, measurement requires interactions and "work".
No problem with this, until we get a contradiction, but none have been
shown in nature.
Unless we are going to assume the existence of entities that are not
subject to these limitations and restrictions, then our assumptions
about what the universe is and how our knowledge of it is
constructible needs to be corrected of errors, such as those of
Laplace. Are we to assume that supernatural entities can communicate
with us? Many people actually do!
Not sure to see the point here.
As a student philosopher of science, I see ontology as extremely
important as the foundation upon which our notions of physics are
built. If our explanations of the universe assumes impossible
entities from the start, the results our reasoning will be rubbish,
G.I.G.O. principle, not matter how correct out formalism may be.
Obviously. But what is impossible in the comp TOE, which assumes only
0, s, + and * and few axioms?
You are just communicating a personal conviction or feeling.
Sure, but I think you can see for yourself what its error is. It is
most difficult to question assumptions that we believe to be true
and have no simple physical falsification.
The problem is not the assumption, as you seem to defend comp
(unlike me). the point is the validity of a reasoning. By definition
of validity, that does not depend of the truth or falsity of the
assumptions.
Indeed! My complaint is not comp's reasoning, it is the assumptions
that it is built on.
Comp, thus.
It assumes what is known to be impossible; that Becoming can emerge
from Being.
What is impossible here? On the contrary, comp explains well why
arithmetic will contains infinitely many version of a Stephen P. King
asserting sincerely that this is impossible, and even explains why
King is correct on this in the first person picture.
A physical primitive becoming is indeed impossible to extract from a
static being. But a psychological feeling of becoming is entirely
explained by comp using only addition and multiplication (and logic).
You confuse a primitive becoming with becoming.
My argument is that it is easy to show the converse case: how Being
can emerge from Becoming.
What is "becoming" without any static being?
Thus I argue that the Perfection of Platonia emerges from the
infinity of temporal processes and interactions.
But Platonia (the arithmetical one used by comp) is infinitely simpler
than any notion of processes I can imagine. how do you define a
processes without using elementary arithmetic?
Numbers become eternal, static and perfect in the limit of all
possible manifestations of them. We can avoid all the problems of
actual infinities and the problem of time, etc. if we do this.
Your result would still obtain and the solution to the arithmetic
body problem would appear.
That's promise, but just define "becoming" without assuming platonia.
I ask for a mathematical definition that anyone can understand when
reading it, and thus not relying on any personal intuition of yours.
I am OK with that, but not if you oppose it to pretend that there
is a flaw in a piece of science.
It is a flaw in the assumed ontological base of science, the idea
that 1) observation is not interaction,
This is not assumed anywhere in the proof.
Not explicitly, no. But it is there.
Where?
Almost every time a verb is used in the UDA it implies some
interaction somewhere.
I think you confuse the level and the meta-level. Group theory does
not do the assumption that paper exists on which group theory can be
described.
2) that it can occur passively and with no thermodynamic cost -
exploration of Maxwell's demon proved otherwise-,
?
3) can be arbitrarily extended.
?
3) is easily disproven using arguments from topology. Can a single
sheet cover a 3-manifold? No!
?
You must use your personal conviction to isolate the flaw. Not just
repeat that there is one.
I have told you what the flaw is that I see.
Not at all. Sorry. No pint at all made in the UDA is addressed. Your
points here are fuzzy, and seems to criticize comp, which is not the
matter of the debate.
I am criticizing the tacit assumptions that are brought into the UDA
from our language and ways of thinking, not the UDA itself.
UDA is an informal, but rigorous, argument. If you find a tacit
assumption, please let us know which one.
The idea that interaction is a passive event, for example,
That is in the conclusion. Not in any assumptions.
the communication between Doctor and patient,
Interactions are assumed of course. It is the bread of computation
theory. But the idea that "interaction" have to be assumed is not
used. You confuse interaction with primitive interactions.
the inspection of the infinite set of possible substitutions levels.
This is fuzzy. It is nevertheless a theorem provable in elementary
arithmetic + comp, that the UD will simulate you at all possible
substitution levels. That's a theorem.
Any act requires WORK to be performed.
???
In which theory. is that an assumption or a theorem, and in that case,
give the axioms you are using, and the proof.
We cannot blithely ignore thermodynamics.
We cannot ignore any facts, but the question is what is assumed, and
what is derived.
You have no explanation for multiple minds in interaction.
That is contingent. It would be a refutation if it was "you cannot
have an explanation for ...", but this is something that you should
prove then.
And then we do get a first person plural, and all what needs to be
done, is to see if the material hypostases get the physical laws as
we know them. And that has become pure math, in this comp frame.
I do not understand how one obtains a plurality of entities, each of
which can overcome its default solipsism and interact with others.
Think about a game like second life, or game where you interact with
many entities.
You forget, or perhaps don't understand that arithmetic is Turing
complete. It emulates all programs, and all possible interaction
between all possible programs. The only things we have to do, it to
justify the measure, and in a very special way, so as to see what will
be communicable or not by the entities.
How do numbers, which are the epitome of static entities, "act" in
any way?
Relatively to universal numbers which transform all numbers into
relative actors.
I argue that they cannot unless they are taken as representations of
physical actions. But to do this we would have to reject AR. You do
not wish to do this. AR is the problem.
OK. So you conclude, like Craig that comp is false. Without AR, comp
has no meaning. the doctir cannot even explain what is a computer. You
can say "yes" to the doctor, but no more say that you survive qua
computatio. perhaps only by the will of god.
So, like a creationist, you assume some god, for preventing a theory
to work.
Anyway, the fact that some theory does not explain something is NOT
a proof that a reasoning done in that theory is invalid.
I am not arguing that the reasoning is invalid. I am arguing that
the assumptions - those things and concepts which are carried into
the reasoning - are invalid;
You have not shown one. You add assumption of primitive things, which
I do not. I use interaction, not primitive interaction. I use time,
not primitive time, I use doctor, not primitive doctor.
at least the one that eternal static entities can "act".
I don't use that assumption, which is trivially nonsensical.
The result is that "act" appears as believed by the relative
numbers. And that is not assumed, it is proved.
Bruno
Bruno
Descartes himself neglected to consider how minds would interact.
If he had, he would have corrected his nonsense.
Bruno
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 [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.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
[email protected]
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 [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 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 [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.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
[email protected]
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 [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.
