On 05 Jan 2015, at 10:56, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 12:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: S=0
On 5 Jan 2015, at 6:13 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <[email protected]
> wrote:
For me the crux has always also been how does anything at all
emerge from an all-encompassing universal nothingness.
Well, you've read Larry Krauss on this by now for the Aristotelian
theologic good oil. Larry may be right.
No I haven't and just took a look and see that I should... so many
books to read :) {within the compression of time afforded me by my
professional obligation}
So thanks for illuminating me to my ignorance of this book.
I would also try Bruno's Platonic frame - which merely states the
universe is how numbers appear to themselves.
I like this frame as well.
It leads to the question: How do numbers appear?
Well, here the theory can explain precisely why we will never been
able to explain that. If we are machine, the origin of natural numbers
is *necessarily* mysterious. The fact is that we cannot explain the
origin of a universal system, like the numbers+add+mult from a non
Turing universal ontology. We need a universal ontology to start from,
unless we accept ultrafinitism (but this needs a universal system at
some metalevel to be defined).
We cannot start from less than that, because we cannot get a universal
system from anything weaker. Note that with QM we can start from
"nothing physical", but this is because in QM, the vacuum is already
Turing universal, and mathematicically the vacuum is not "nothing", it
presupposes big things like Hilbert space, linear operators, etc.
The Truth is: Nothing emerges from Anything. Everything just is,
was and always will be, just like in arithmetic.
Truth depends on perspective though. Perspective itself is a prime
mover. All other things require perspective.
Well, as Kim said, 2+2=4 is supposed to be absolutely true. Note that
it makes sense because elementary arithmetic is the part of
mathematics on which all mathematician agrees (again with the
exception of the ultrafinitists, which are rare, and, I could argue
inconsistent, certainly so with the hypothesis of computationalism).
Also we need to be clear that we are not dealing with time in the
normal macro sense we commonly experience it in as an emergent
causal stack frame in some hyper space. Before emergent reality
there can be no time itself; there is nothing!
Pure undivided static nothing.
WE have physical nothingness, but not at the beginning, always.
What we have is simply the arithmetical reality, and time, space,
physicalness are illusion from inside. The arithmetical reality
contains all the digital video games, and the physical appearances
emerge from the statistical interference of those "video games".
Time only has meaning from within the perspective of emergent
reality. It is very real for us and for our experience, but then we
swim within so many layers of emergent reality and it is nearly
impossible for us to extricate ourselves from being contained within
the temporal perspective (or I would say emergent causally-ordered-
stack-frame of reference)
So to speak in terms of before or after is simply non-applicable
because this ordering of things (or if you stay with me for a
second...) this emergent frame of reference enabling causally
ordered stacked movies of experience, to be conjured out from static
timeless empty void, through being dynamical threads of execution
(and self-aware execution)... experiencing -- from their perspective
-- the sense of the one way arrow of time.... and threading through
the dream of nothing experiencing itself too produce an infinite
(eternal inflation baby) reality of infinite threads... all a dream
dreaming itself.
Arithmetic Realism. Grok it.
I have
Two plus two always did equal four and everything else can be
doubted in some way.
If everything else can be doubted in some way can you explain your
doubt that: "0={0}"
?
0 is not equal to {0}. Why should it? In the usual set theories we
accept a "foundation axiom" which prevents a set to be a member of
itself. When we represent number by set, usually 0 = { } (the empty
set).
Trouble is, it doesn't immediately seem like a scientific
conclusion to say "you are a very complex number and you are
dreaming yourself" but there might be a less Stanley Kubrick way
of putting it but for the moment it escapes me
No.. it sure doesn't and just the very mention of it raises the
violent ire of hard core Aristotelean materialists. I really like
how Bruno said this -- or along this line of thought on another
thread
" Then all the rest, God included, is part of a persistent number
hallucination, but "hallucination" should not be used as "unreal",
because the hallucination is real, and is what makes our lives, and
there is no reason to dismiss them at all. "
I liked how he put that.
Thank Chris and Kim for support and attempt to understand. To make the
conclusion scientific, all we need is a good mathematical definition
of the "first person pov".
Now, this is apparently very problematical, because typically the
first person, like Brouwer's creative subject, does not admit a third
person definition, or a formal specification.
But here the Gödel-Tarski theorem on the non definability of truth
entails literally a miracle.
Indeed, if we accept the identity between the first person and the
knower, then the oldest definition of the knower, by Theaetetus, []p &
p, leads to a modal operator which (by tarski, Scott, Montague)
cannot, indeed, be defined in any third person ways. We can emulate it
on each individual arithmetical proposition, but cannot define it with
a general third person object. In fact a machine can refute all
attempt to do so, making her ... against computationalism.
For example "I know that 2+2=4" is defined by []("2+2=4") & 2+2=4, but
to define "I know x" we would need "[]x (which is definable (it is
Gödel predicate) + " & x", but x cannot be a proposition (it is a
number, in arithmetic), and we cannot quote it as a definition. This
makes the knower being "not a machine" from the machine first person
point of view, and explain why the machine will not identify her soul
with her body. And that explain why the machine will need to make a
big leap of faith to say "yes" to a digital surgeon. It explains Craig
Weinberg's intuition that mechanism is false, as *it is false* in the
first person perspective. The same is true for the []p & <>t & p
variants, which will explains the sensibility of the qualia.
That theory is testable as it predicts that the logic of []p & p, []p
& <>t, []p & <>p & p" must obey quantum logic, with a quantization
given by []<>p, when p is computable (Sigma_1), and that has shown to
be the case.
So, just digital mechanism (computationalism) together with the
definition of knowledge by Theaetetus explains why the reality looks
like obeying the quantum principle. (the " & <>p" transforms
provability into "probability one", formally and intuitively with the
Kripke semantics).
The problem is that we get only one qubit, and we still lack a tensor
product, but there are reason to expect them from other variants: the
graded one given by []^n p & <>^m t & p. But this can works only if
they obeys some relations, which unfortunately have not been proved,
and, although it is decidable, it is still today untractable on
computers, and thus we have open problems. I have just finished a
technical paper where I sum up all the open problems there.
I might try to make some summary for the list some day, if some are
interested.
Best,
Bruno
-Chris
Kim
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.
