Dear Bruno, Among other interesting things, you wrote:
"If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or if you have played with a couple of universal system (machine or language), and have even a rough idea how Gödel's theorem can be proved in arithmetic (= by PA itself), you should not have too much difficulty to conceive that the sigma_1 number relations constitute a universal system, and thus emulate all Turing machines and brains. Then AR does the rest (assuming comp 'course)." We differ most in our interpretation of the word "emulate". For me, an "emulation" implies some form of physical activity that acts as the energetic motivation of the functions that are isomorphic to the "universal system". My reasoning here is a process<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/>based interpretation of the Stone duality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_duality>: physical systems are to Stone spaces what logical systems are to Boolean algebras. The isomorphism between a BA and a Stone space S(BA) need not be a strictly bijection. Thus when you write: "emulates a universal system", I parse this as "some physical system implements the isomorph of the logical universal system". I do not see how what is by definition fixed and timeless can be considered to have any property that is an actual action<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)>. Numbers can *represent* actions, but they are most definitely NOT actions; there is no evolution associated with them, again, by definition. My definition of computation reflects this reasoning as well. It says that the evolution of a physical system is dual to a computation of the set of representations of that system. This also requires a weakening of the notion of computational independence: A universal computation is independent of any particular physical implementation, but it is not independent of the class of all physical implementations. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:29, LizR wrote: > > On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: > >> Dear Bruno, >> >> I do not claim that UDA is "flawed". I claim it is incomplete and based >> on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can reason as if >> the physical world does not exist and discuss ideas that imply the >> existence of Becoming and measures there of (time) all the while using >> axioms that forbid their existence. It is the sound of one hand clapping in >> a mind that cannot imagine air. >> > > I don't see why any of AR implies the existence of becoming. > > > OK. See below. > > > > Nor do I understand how Bruno gets computations out indexically. > > > > I don't get the computation indexically, unless you mean the indices of > the phi_i. > Indexical was referring to the mathematics of self-reference used in AUDA. > It is the one obeying G and G*, and whose variants gives the person points > of view (including the "physical one"). > > That the computation are emulated through number relations in arithmetic > is quite standard. It is already almost explicit in Gödel 1931, although > nitpickers could say this only appears really "officially" in Hilbert and > Bernays. > > It is technically easy, but long and tedious to do that in detail. When > done, there can be some opposition coming from the fact that people confuse > computations (the abstract notion), and their description in term of > numbers. > > If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or if you > have played with a couple of universal system (machine or language), and > have even a rough idea how Gödel's theorem can be proved in arithmetic (= > by PA itself), you should not have too much difficulty to conceive that the > sigma_1 number relations constitute a universal system, and thus emulate > all Turing machines and brains. Then AR does the rest (assuming comp > 'course). > > And then you have your explanation of becoming, up to one serious but > fertile difficulty. > Indeed, once you understand that all subjective experiences, which include > the subjective feeling of becoming, are emulated in arithmetic, the > "illusion" of becoming is explained. > > The problem is that by the FPI, we must still explain the statistical > persistence of such feelings, and here UDA explains that such persistence > can only come from the relative FPI, which can be translated in math, and > that reduce physics to mathematics. > > It does not necessarily make the physical into a mathematical structure. > It makes the whole coupling consciousness/physicalness into an arithmetical > internal phenomenon. > > Hope this helped a bit, > > Bruno > > > > > > > > I suspect you don't, either, so you assume he uses "becoming" - if so we > both need to know exactly what Bruno is arguing actually happens (I use the > word under erasure!) before we can have an opinion on whether he's right or > not. > > I have to ask, do you accept block universes? If not imho you're probably > arguing from a false premise yourself. > > >> The UDA can be useful and it is interesting, but it is a castle built >> in midair and expected to float free because the designer does not admit >> the existence of gravity. >> > > "That's fighting talk!" :-) > > > -- > 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 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.
