On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LizR <[email protected]>
> To: everything-list <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
>
> On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
<[email protected]
> > wrote:
> So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in
> the scientific sense.
Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is
wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its
logic of the observable) and its actual testing?
Because you don't have one.
But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional
physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean
logic, like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using
the quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and
infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex.
If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the
field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the
possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of
the computations going through our states (computational states), and
so that logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal
machine. Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having
simple (true) beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc.
Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work?
Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the
physics of the machines.
Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics
that I do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics
collapse into boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been
refuted, or show trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether,
at least as a physical laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM
would only describe a subpart of it.
Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or
retrodicts that the observable
have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic.
It predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a
symmetry conditions.
It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it,
but that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to
solve to progress. You just need to understand the technics. It is
had, and I have done the best I could. A student and friend of mine,
the late Eric Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics,
which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process. My
interest is in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one.
But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory.
They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck (or
bad luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is
exactly the quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that.
And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin
of the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where
UDA and machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find
quantum logic.
If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL,
well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more
axioms, and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new
theorems and new physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is
not just the classical knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have
axioms inherited from the Löb formula, from which we get information
not available. In their first order arithmetical extensions, there is
an infinities of such information.
> No one calls you on this.....here.....but then again.....let's face
> it no one answered my question either.
I did.
You did. And you have many times before. But the question was, could
anyone OTHER than you answer it.
Can anyone other than you ask such a question?.
Of course, everyone who understand the work can explain it to others.
I mean UDA, of course, as for AUDA you need a more rare familiarity
with a large spectrum of logics and mathematical logics, and
theoretical computer science.
Do the other understand your question.
You do seem skeptical on something but never say about what precisely,
except the "falsification", where you just deny the fact that I do
have a procedure to refute empirically the theology of the machines.
I find amazing that it has not yet been refuted so far, and sad
because I know that is also due to the lack of interests.
Your type of talk is quite confusing, and you don't augment the
probability that the comp QL is refuted by asserting the theory is not
falsifiable, which is possible only without having really study what
has been done.
See that's the issue. I don't think anyone really understands
whether you have a falsifiable prediction or not. And these things
are 3p if you like.
But most understand the problem and the importance of the FPI, I
think. Russell got a similar occam catastrophe, and it is a price of
the conceptual simplicity, which can lead to trivialness, but also to
technics to avoid it.
Then indeed, for AUDA, it is a matter of hard work, as expected in
hard science, with the difficulty that logic (the field) is not well
known nor taught.
I sincerely think you miss the thing. I start from what seems
outrageously falsifiable (like Russell and others on this list, like
Parmenides too), that nothing or everything is simpler than *any*
something. I show comp to be like that, and even a priori directly
falsified, as its physics seems to predicts, from UDA, virtually
anything for all experimental configurations, by the FPI, on some
concrete and then arithmetical UD*.
At the end of UDA, normal people might think: OK, nice, that was a
definite refutation of comp.
Then in AUDA, the machine itself says "wait a bit! you did not take
into account the fact that the FPI is a first person notion, nor more
generally of the fact that you abstract the probability from the
infinitely many cul-de-sac world/state (implying a sort of
backtracking à-la Saibal Mitra).
Then the math, well actually the (Löbian) machine, shows that when you
take into account those constraints, you get the logics which, up to
know, seem to share enough of the quantum to phase out the infinitely
many arithmetical white rabbits.
It is hard to understand how the reversal could not be falsified. It
says that the physical reality (notably) is entirely in your head. So
you can look in your head, and then compare with what you observe.
And, I say, not just in *your* head, but in the head of *any*
universal number, and I give the procedure leading it to look inward,
and express itself on the subject.
I hope you are not repeating rumors. I am not defending my thesis
here. Just chatting with people who knows a bit and share a similar
interest in the search of understanding, with some acknowledgment that
we should not deny the many points of view and relative perspectives,
nor (first) person, and consciousness, mind, machines, numbers, etc.
May be I got a better way to explain: look at the UDA as an attempt to
refute computationalism, then AUDA is the constructive machine's
answer to that attempt of refutation. It shows that UDA refutes comp
only if if nature does not obey the comp QL (assuming I am not
dreaming or in a Boström emulation).
That *is* the point, the test point of your understanding of classical
comp(s); its or (their) falsifiable characters.
A bit like QM makes metaphysics and some logics experimental (se
Shimony), comp makes theology partially experimental, notably because
that theology contains the core physical laws, on which the
consciousness differentiation will give the relative geographico-
historical realties.
Earth is not that separated from Heaven, in the classical machine
theology.
But don't buy this as a truth, but as a possibility, because the naive
classical comp translation of the physics, in the UDA sense, in
arithmetic might be as well refuted tomorrow. It is that precise.
Bruno
--
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.
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/d/optout.
