On 08 Jun 2014, at 00:08, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification.
Russell Standish read it...he understood.
So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months.
I obviously shouldn't have said this, so am sorry for doing so.
It is not the first time you "explode".
But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not
responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even
invited him to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't
responded to, and I would demonstrate the reason I'd stopped
responding was that Bruno presented 'no case to answer'. Silence
from PGC.
PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is
it...the guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in
here? When has he ever described anything he believes in, in plain
English?
Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at
explaining what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value
their dizzy comp experiences, my arguments ignored by Bruno....and
all of this despite it being me to be mentioning a take on
falsification that the vast majority of science, historically and
now would agree with?
But you have not succeeded that comp + "the arithmetical theaetetus"
is not experimentally testable in that very sense.
Unless you introduce "wordplay"-difficulties just to prevent the
admittedly naive but precise interview of the löbian number to take on.
I really would not like being patronizing but let me give you an
advise: never complains when people says "I don't understand you".
Just reply by making the point clearer. You did not reply to any of my
questions, which would help me to get your point clearer.
And now this new issue, with PGC and Bruno making constructive
arguments about scientists accepting certain arguments, and so by
some sort of logic accepting Bruno's theory.
Not theory. But theorems. You forget the link between comp and
computer sciences, and its embedding in the arithmetical reality.
Just taken literally and in a precise sense.
It is really the discovery of the universal numbers in arithmetic
which makes this possible.
Which happens to involve things like eternal life for us,
consciousness not being generated by our brains...direct links to
MWI. That latest argument, I simply rejected by pointing out that
not everyone does accept MWI, who accept QM.
When we do science, we don't talk about what people accept or not, but
only about what they have to accept or reject from what they believe,
if they are enough consistent.
These are really really controversial claims, and there's no way
it's reasonable to think that if someone accepts comp as some high
level proposal, that if they were forced to choose between that and
all of the above, they can be relied on to stick with comp.
Those claims are controversial only in the way you describe them.
You talk like if comp could be true and computer science could be
wrong (on ideally correct machines).
And if they can't be relied on...if there's a reasonable prospect
scientists will rather reject comp than accept infinities of dreams,
and eternal life, and consciousness outside the body...if there's a
reasonable chance they'll rather reject comp than accept that, then
the thing to do WITH INTEGRITY is acknowledge that, and not be going
around saying they accept something.
What I say is easy, but just hard to believe for aristotelian.
It is a triviality, in modern theology, to say that one the mind body
"duality", science has not decided between Aristotle and Plato.
Then comp, when taken seriously enough forces us to generalize Everett
on arithmetic, even the sigma_1 arithmetic.
That leads to a clear arithmetical formulation of the mind body
problem, and thanks to theorems by Solovay, Löb, Gödel, we can already
contemplate the propositional logics of the main different points of
view, on the sigma_1 sentences (UD*).
I'm dropping this now. I'm technically saying sorry for calling
someone a liar, but for everything else I think the integrity issues
are somewhere else. And it really doesn't matter if you all want to
gang up and not see any of these issues. Collective blindspots are
hardly anything new in the world.
I saw Liz asked good questions. I hope you explain to Liz. If she
understands, I am pretty sure she can explain me what is the problem.
Bruno
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.
