On 10 Oct 2014, at 21:36, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> physics does not even address the problem of qualia
And neither does religion.
But the greek theology did, by addressing the mind-body problem, in
fact the problem of relating the soul (which I handle through the
notion of the owner of the first person experience) with the mind
(which I model by what the machine can prove in the 3p view about
itself at its correct substitution level) and the body (which
disappears in the theologies where it belongs to the observer
epistemology, like time was for Einstein: "an illusion although a
persistent one".
By the theology, or by the god, of the machine M, I mean the truth
about the machine M.
This is very general and should not annoy any set of beliefs, be it
muslims, jews, christians, atheists. From outside: the god of the
machine is technically defined by the set of the gödel number
The "proper theology" is the part containing the true but non provable
by M propositions. By incompleteness it is not empty.
Then the whole point will be that the same true arithmetical
propositions can be seen from points of view, which are equivalent
from the True view, but not in an accessible way to the machine and
thus obeys different logic with different semantics, from those
machines points view.
This makes the whole debate on what is knowledge into arithmetic: the
Gödel's provability predicate []p does not obey to the same logic than
Theatetus' knower []p & p.
Similarly, for the case of the bet, it assumes the existence of a
reality, but this is equivalent (for PA) with consistency (by Gödel's
*completeness* theorem: being consistent = having a model (a
mathematical structure satisfying your beliefs). So to get a bet, even
out of the truth, you need to make the consistency explicit: []p &
<>t (<>t = ~[]f = consistency).
The move []p ==> []p & p associate a canonical first person to the
machine M. That gives a formal (for god) subjective antisymmetrical
time. From the point of view itself, it looks and is informal.
The move []p ==> []p & p associate a canonical observer (better on W
and M type of consistent extension, accessible by the UD, that is p
restricted to the sigma_1 sentence): that gives the "bodies" and the
symmetrical spaces at the bottom.
Some of those logics inherit the G/G* split into the provable by the
M, and the true but not provable. That helps to distinguish physics
and the physical (la physique et le physique, in french), the 3p
combustion and the 1p burn. Quantum Logic is the border of the
Universal Machine Qualium Logic, we could say. Quanta are the first
person plural sharable qualia.
The question is: why above the level the probabilities are volumes,
and below they are based on Pythagorus theorem? Why sum of cosinus
square? We can't answer: because it works, as we must extract it from
the machine observation theory. But clarifying the two sides is not a
lux.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
