On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> 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 & >>> lt;[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. >> > > Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.....I've no > access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a > 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and private. Like > fight club geezer...that silly film: what happens on everything list, stays > on everything list. My blood my pledge! Seriously....I'm always aware > arguing with you in this long running way, of your experiences you shared > about psycho stalkers and such like. Well that ain't me geezer :o) I come > from the harder fraternity of, in the morning "forgive 'em...or kill 'em". > Just kidding obviously, but even if I wasn't...there's definitely > nothing...nothing...that anyone can say or do on a list that wouldn't > qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.....I don't know about you but I agree > with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it > looks.....which speaking of killing people.....you'd have to kill someone > here to get a ban from Russell, so it looks. > Always a risk with you...your French.....you'll not take something the > right way. Do me a favour and get Kim to translate for you if you've any > concerns :O) > > No but....I believe in what I believe, and I'm only interested in you > because of the things that I think make us similar or see things the same > way. I might never mention them, and only what I don't agree...but that's > how it works for my little brain to learn. Very long winded and slow but > it's the only way I have. I think you're right about a lot of things. I > think you're wrong about the falsification thing, but I'm just going to > file that now where I filed the cannabis issue. We've been through it. Time > for bed now that one. > > > But you don't comment any of my answers. The falsification issue is > factual. You might criticize the translation of the UDA in arithmetic, but > you can't deny that I gave a a clear way to test the final TOE > I haven't denied or openly doubted you see a test in the future. But...most things predict things in one sense or another. Where we disagree is on whether 'falsifiability' is open to variants such that, if someone can formulate a form of words involving some sort of test in the faR say they see a clear future way to test their theory, or a conviction of a clear way to test a final toe. This is all an earlier stage than falsifiability.
> (the scheme of TOEs) given, and indeed the test that we have been able > to do have not (yet) refute classical computationalism, and do refute many > use of Gödel or QM against computationalism. > > As long as you don't answer precise questions (like are you OK with the > FPI and step 3, what about step 7, step 8, ...?), ..., we cannot progress, > not even on what we would be disagreeing. Negative comments without giving > precision are not really helpful. I don't even know if you are OK with > conceiving that the physical reality might be an emergent reality from non > a non physical reality? > > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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.
