On 01 Mar 2014, at 18:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrot
>>> information does need a substrate in which to manifest.
>> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest
level. The integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything
except other numbers and once you describe how they interact with
other mathematical objects you've said all there is to say about
them. In the same way in string theory the strings aren't made of
anything and they have reality only in how they interact with other
strings; so perhaps at the fundamental level reality not only can be
described mathematically but actually IS mathematical.
> And that is a necessary consequence of computationalism, but this
leads to the explicit problem of justifying physics from arithmetic
or Turing equivalent.
Perhaps it's a difference in degree not of kind, when the properties
of stuff becomes rich and complex enough we start referring to it as
physical not mathematical.
I understand the feeling. But Mandelbrot has already made *that* sort
of physicalness into mathematics. We have the regular solid + the
Mandelbrot set (which contains clouds, thunder, trees, houses, embryo,
etc. from the "shape" point of view).
Most would say that a pie chart is mathematical but an apple pie is
physical, but other than the fact that one is enormously more
complex than the other it's difficult to pin down a fundamental
difference between the two.
?
Google translates "pie chart" by camembert and "apple pie", which
makes what you say rather funny.
And what about the memory of a apple pie you saw last week, is that
mathematical or physical?
Why not: is that psychological or computer science theoretical?
Why not: theological or arithmetical?
Well, that's all the cases when we assume something about
consciousness, and take the relative points of view into account.
The assumption is that such (1p) consciousness is "maintained" through
a digital emulation done at some description level.
If Darwin's ideas were even close to being correct then we know
that the sensation we experience when we remember last week's apple
pie could almost certainly be duplicated on a Turing Machine, and
that is mathematical.
Yes indeed.
And all the apple pies you've ever experienced come from the past,
it's just that some are more recent than others, again a difference
in degree not of kind.
The point is in making the hypotheses precise, and then the
definitions, and to work out the problems. Computationalism,
obviously, makes computer science and mathematical logic tools to
formulate the questions and solve them.
By the way, you told me that Og the cave man understood the step 3,
could you please ask him his opinion on step 4? Thanks.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
