On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:28:00 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? >>> >>> >>> No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for all n, >>> even infinite enumerable set of oscillators. You would need a continuum of >>> oscillators, with an explicit special non computable hamiltonian. Today, >>> there is nothing in nature which would threat comp, except the collapse of >>> the wave packet in theories where this is a physical phenomenon. Even in >>> that case, it would be a computation with oracle, and not change much of >>> the consequences. Anyway, I am not sure I can make sense of the wave >>> collapse being a physical phenomenon, and even less that this play a role >>> in the brain computation. >>> >> >> Food for thought there, on the positive side. On the not-negative side, >> from my perspective I would probably class comp - or as it can be used - as >> an 'infinity theory', which whether correct or not, as I do see it that >> way, one major prediction blanketing the whole class would be that it's >> actually impossible for any development or surprise to amount to a major >> problem for theories in that class, or be influential. Purely as one of the >> properties of infinity...there's always a bit more infinity for whatever >> comes along. >> >> >> You are right, and wrong. >> >> Mechanism is usually presented as a form of finitism. Indeed only finite >> entities needs to exist. We need only 0, s(0), s(s(s0))), etc. But we need >> all of them, if only to explain Church thesis and define what are universal >> machines (even if those are finite beings, but to explain their possible >> behaviors, which are infinite). >> >> Then, when taking into account the personal views, the many infinities >> arise, but we can locate them somehow in the mind of the machines, as the >> basic ontology remains enumerable. >> >> Yet, what is assumed here is still much less that what is assumed in >> particles theory, quantum field theory, etc. >> > > I think I mostly get what you've said here....as I've read yours and a few > other peoples take on each point over time. I think it's reasonable to > regard as 'infinity based' thinking, theorizing etc, as one or more of: > > - believes nature has infinite resources it can bring to a converged > dimensionality (I.e. the MWI thinks multiple worlds can be in the same > converged place) > > - solves a problem with a hypothesis involving the anthropic principle if > part of that solutution implies an effectively infinite space > > - believes a theory absent verified predictions : the reason this one > qualifies in my view is because in this day and age, anyone that does this > ends up with infinity thinking, because that the major problem and threat > facing the future of science. > > - OR a theory that IMPLIES and SUPPORTS a infinity theory. Because if that > is the case, it is now with 'consequences' an infinity theory. > >> >> >> >> >> So on the side in which I'm secretly interested and entertaining >> this infinity paradigm it's food for thought. On the other >> not-not-entertaining side, nothing new has been said about comp at all. >> >> >> ? >> Well, I don't want to brag on the newness, but usually people consider as >> new the following things: >> - the existence of the first person indeterminacy >> - the incompatiçbility between mechanism and materialism >> - the idea that physics is derivable by machine's introspection, and thus >> that physicalism has to be replaced, for those wanting comp to be true, by >> a form of arithmeticalism (classified as finitism, see for example the book >> by judson Webb : "mentalism, finitism and metamathematics"). >> > > If you listen to nothing else I ever say, please please listen to this: > it's really bad that you've wrapped yourself in this modesty thing. I can > obviously appreciate the sentiment underneath..I'm sure it kicked off > virtuous. But it sort of psychologically encourages behaviours that a lot > of people - particularly very sceptical people - will find suspicious. For > example, I think there's a link somewhere between not being clear and > repetitive what you think your big accomplishments are, and - possibly - > getting into habits that probably start with trying to find lots of > different metaphors or arguments to represent your ideas (because that > would be one way to avoid appearing to repeat key accomplishments)...which > can lead to situations where a sceptical person is challenging you about > something you've said in the past, which you may not even remember that > well, because it was a metaphor...a kind experimental statement. In that > situation on your side it will seem natural and reasonable to simply > reformulate the same underlying and represent it. But to the person that > has challenged the earlier thing..,,.that will start to look intellectually > dishonest. > > There are other behaviours, that can come. I think this thing about being > logician and not believing in the theory. Again, it might have been true at > some point., It might be true now. But that's something that has to > reviewed by you on a regular basis. Because you frequently also so you > believe your theory is true. You've recently said this a thread in your > last 20 or 30 posts. Also your behaviour is absolutely identical to someone > that totally commits and invests in an idea and is very protective and > single-minded about it. And a sceptical person will judge the behaviour and > the words together, and if there is a conflict, the behaviour will be taken > as true. > > But IMHO there's an even worse thing about this logician/doesn't-belive > gig. Bruno......you are marvellous the way you are. Apart from the > falsification thing. I'm interested in history, and I've studied a few of > the geniuses...though more circumstances around them. They were LUNATICS > Bruno..obsessed maniacs willing to do ANYTHING to get that next insight. > These aren't people that were willing doubt their beliefs on the basis of > a rhetorical argument, convention, populist standing, grant availaibility. > Conjecture and Refutation? Get the hell out of here! When has Deutsch ever > done the C&R thing with anyone resulting in Deutsch changing a view? Never > that I can find. > > But there's a reason and it's because it's amazing hard because reality is > so freaky. That's what it takes. I'm interested in your because you're a > lunatic. I don't know if you're going the right way. I think and hope you > will convert your work to predictive course...which would require stripping > back a lot of things...for now. But maybe I'm wrong...maybe you can see a > prediction in the future....in which case keep going I guess. But it's > definitely people like you really are, than these cool logician types that > don't believe anything, that change the world,. > AND that's one of the problems with relying on popular...convential...history for assessing things. Like the way you all reference Galieo verbatim from popular history for example. He wasn't very significant in reality. The telescope was invented for a while, and thousands of people in the protestan north, were already looking at the sky and already noting these issues. I'm not saying he wasn't a genius but rthere's this notion of individuals rejecting authority as the basis of science. By definition, no one challenges POWER. In the north, POWER was with the aristocracy by 1600, and in the SOUTH power was with the Vatican. No one in the north challenged the aristocracy...they didn't have to...because the aristocracy recognized the emerging science as a great way to fuck up the power base in the south. They had no problem with science and what went round what in the sky. Power doesn't tell you what to do about everything.,..but only some red lines you can't cross. You can't ever speak of power that it is powerful. Because power polices this...and will punish it, and will reward those that do not. Do you think it was ok for someone in 1600 to talk about rulers as if they were simply powerful? No...because that wasn't the narrative and power controls narrative. The narrative was that their position was NATURAL, earned, and god given. The worst thing a courtier could do, was speak to a superior about the lower status of the ordinary folk. Because, the superior would regard that, as suggesting the difference between the two of them was based on superficial social standing. You'd get head cut off within weeks. No one dares question power. If they do...all it means is that power is on the wane, and a new power is on the rise.
-- 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/d/optout.
