On 17 Feb 2014, at 17:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Hi Richard,
Yes, that is a good example. R-computations, the R-math computations
that actual compute the current information state of the universe,
never have a halting problem because they are a program that always
simply computes the next state from the current state which is
ALWAYS possible.
The Godel incompleteness and Halting problems only apply to H-math
cases where a human mathematician comes up with a mathematical
statement in advance, and then tries to get an automated system to
computationally reach that state and thus prove it.
That does not make sense.
Reality doesn't work this way. It never 'imagines' any state to then
try and reach it computationally. That would amount to teleology. R-
math just always computes the next state from the present state.
Just as ordinary software programs never have any problem at all in
continually producing programmed output, so R-computations never do
either.
R-computations ALWAYS happily compute the current state of reality
no matter what Bruno, Godel, or Turing or anybody else postulates
about H-math.
This is non sense. The notion of computation defined by Post, Church,
etc. does not refer to humans, and with Church thesis is the most
human independent epistemological notion ever.
And you have not yet explained what *you* mean by computation, be them
H or R.
The proof of this is clearly that the universe DOES happily keep on
existing, in spite of any H-mathematician telling us it doesn't or
might not, or couldn't.
The arithmetical universe might keep on existing, in some sense,
perhaps. But you seem to conflate reality with physical reality. That
cannot work if you assume computationalism.
Bruno
On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:07:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Edgar,
We recently learned on this list that a Turing machine does not halt
based on real numbers and apparently can only halt for the natural
numbers. I wonder if that may correspond to your claim of the
computations of nature being different from the computations of
humans. If I remember correctly you referred to the former as R
computations and the latter as H computations.
Richard
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Russell,
And, as I mentioned, there is exhaustive evidence from cognitive
science, and the sciences of physiology and perception, of the many
specific different ways that humans DO model an external reality in
their internal mental models of reality.
Why do you just reject all this well documented science out of hand?
Edgar
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:40:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
>
> Well, there is overwhelming evidence of many sorts. The very fact
that you
> and I can even communicate about this issue is one proof, unless
you think
> I'm just a pesky figment of your imagination!
It is evidence only of an intersubjective reality. That there is a
common reality (to us) that we can agree on. Indeed, COMP, to take one
theory of consciousness, predicts the existence of such an
intersubjective
reality. But, it is not evidence of a reality independent of all
observers.
>
> And of course that can't possibly be true since I was here just
fine before
> I ever met you....
>
> The obvious fact that we have to eat and breathe to survive,
unless you
> believe that just imagining food and oxygen is enough to sustain us.
>
That is evidence of the Anthropic Principle (there is much stronger
evidence of that too), ie what we observe as reality must be
consistent with our existence within that reality. The Anthropic
Principle
does not imply an observer independent reality - that would be a
reverse syllogism fallacy.
> So again I would say you are confusing the internal simulation of
reality
> that all minds produce, and that everyone thinks is the real world
he lives
> in, with the real external reality that all minds simulate each in
their
> own way.
>
Keep going. You still haven't provided any evidence that this "real
external reality" actually exists! Until you do so, I will state that
there is nothing here to confuse. Of course, if you actually succeed,
not only will many people be surprised, you will undoubtedly be the
most famous philosopher since Aristotle and Plato.
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
