On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en
the amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and
2) "yes doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the
neighborhood for giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor".
By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the
hypothesis much weaker than all the formulation in the literature.
This does not prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with
respect to what we know from biology, it is still a *theologically*
extremely strong hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as
reminding us that Plato was Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory"
was not Aristotelian (at least in the sense of most Aristotle
followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued to still be a
platonist, like some scholars defends).
So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp
theory (which is arguably a very old idea).
Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can
even take offense that we can imagine not following comp.
Because they might not. This is a problem, because the other thing
you do is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you
r theory. So you are dominating people.
Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to
show a flaw if you think there is one).
I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of
Aristotelianism, I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the
reasoning, as it is admittedly counter-intuitive.
Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on
in extre dimensional reality?
First, I don't express myself in that way.
For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning
its logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which
think that matter goes on in extradimensional reality.
With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal
machine if its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural
numbers) or has a very large cardinal.
Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary
arithmetic (like Robinson arithmetic).
I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter,
and the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology.
Do theybelieve in MWI
This is ambiguous.
In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism",
as a (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or
become skeptical) on both a creator and a creation.
So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory.
What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure
determine the set of all emulations, indeed with an important
redundancy. They exist in the sense that you can prove their
existence in elementary arithmetic. That is not mine, that is
standard material.
You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since
the beginning.
Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
the infinite multiverse of dreams?
If you agree that the natural numbers obeys to the axioms (with s(x)
intended for the successor of x, that is x+1):
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
Then you get the "multiverse of dreams" by comp.
Keep in mind the most fundamental theorem of computer science (with
Church Thesis): Universal machines exist. And that theorem is
provable in Robinson arithmetic (in a weak sense), and in Peano
Arithmetic (with a stringer sense).
What are the other consequences of the theory. Run me through them.
If it helps you to doubt a little bit of physicalism and
Aristotelianism, I am happy enough.
The consequence is more a state of mind, an awe in front of
something bigger that we thought (the internal view of arithmetic on
itself). An awe in front of our ignorance, but also the discovery
that such ignorance is structured, productive, inexhaustible.
So here I would say that PGC was just saying the normal thing. Most
rationalists believe in comp, and what follows has been peer
reviewed enough. (Then humans are humans, and the notoriety of some
people makes ideas having to wait they died before people talk and
think, and special interests and all that, so I admit the results
are still rather ignored, though some people seems to be inspired by
them also, hard to say).
No that's not right. There are huge chains of unrefuted logic out
there. People don't sign up to those chains, they sign up to what
they accept. Scientists might reject comp if they hear what you've
got to say. A large number would not find that you sought to
dominate their options in comp very scientific.
The problem here Bruno, is you act like they have responsibility to
automatelly go into that process with you, or they are in a position
in which they assume comp, and now they have to find a fault in your
reasoning, or they automatically assume UDA.
Why not?
Once a mathematician proves that there are irrational numbers, no
one will come back with a theory claiming that does not exist, or
claiming that 2x^2 = y^2 has non trivial integer solution.
Computer science is a bran.... mathematics. Everyone can verify what
I say. That is science: people must follow, or explain where there
is a flaw. The only opposition of some scientists was that my work
was too much easy, like their two years old niece could find
herself. I agree, but then she should publish.
Of course the subject makes easy to just ignore all this, because
during all the years of research, I was confronted with scientists
just dislilink the fundamental question, but also the quantum
computer science, ... That is common with *some* (not all of course)
among the so called "pure mathematicians" which just hates
applications (and logic was considered as a branch of pure
mathematics by some logicians who j
You didn't address my points..beause ng out of this in my experience
when you stop addressing point you don't start again.
No problem.
You seem to be defining something new there Bruno. Looks a lot
simpler than Popper's philosophy. Whereas he'd have to do C&R for
however long, before he'd feel able to to say someone was a
popperian. He would probably totally irrelevantly do that wait
thing, until the person actually said they accepted his argument.
You've also defined science apparently in terms of mathematical
proofing. Apparently youj no longer need that 'test' you'vr been
talking about.
I keep insisting on the contrary. We make theory and proof theorem
which shows some testable consequence of the theory and we test those
consequences.
People will have to study it. It could be Popperians are now able to
bypass conjecture and refutation process, for the vast majority of
humanity. Pretty sure Deutsch is going to be making everyone in the
world Popperian by lunchtime (on grounds Rationalism is unrefutated
and all the major explanations in the set he's got are unrefuted for
a while.
So, I guess we're all popperians now, and Popperianism just got a
lot simkpler. That's Occam for sure.
We can be partially Popperian. Popper criteria *has been refuted*.
CASE J. & NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference
by Popperian
machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New-
York, Buffalo.
Science gets a good deal to. We can get rid of peer review,
scientific consensus...those idiots that say nothing is ever proven
in science can shut up
?
Peer review is indispensable. But science "proves" nothing about
reality, it makes things relatively plausible or implausible.
Baiscally, it doesn'tmatter the way you used here.....and I'm
definitely not being not going to be engaging you envisionings of
scientific method on this occasion.
Our problem is that you do philosophy of science to criticize a
scientific result. That is close to Bergson mistake.
You don't address the specific point in physical/cognitive science
here at all. You seem to escape in the meta for never addressing any
points made.
Do you agree with step 3, the first person indeterminacy?
Bruno
So have fun with it. Let me know what I believe sometime.
--
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.
