On 08 Jan 2015, at 05:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 3:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 07 Jan 2015, at 08:41, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 04 Jan 2015, at 08:07, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
In regard to:
"If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?"
This is exactly what I'm suggesting. It would not remain
"nothing". We usually think of the situation when you get rid of
all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, minds,
etc. as "nothing". But, what I'm saying is that this supposed
"nothing" really isn't the lack of all existent entities. That
"nothing" would be the entirety of all that is present; that's it;
there's nothing else. It would be the all. An entirety is a
grouping defining what is contained within and therefore an existent
entity, based on my definition of an existent entity.
Your set comprehension axiom. You are working in some set theory,
which is provably too much in case you assume brain works without
magic (computationalism).
So, even what we think of as "nothing" is an existent entity or
"something".
If only through the "we" which think about that nothing.
Is anything possible at all without an observer?
In principle yes. The arithmetical reality is supposed to exist/make
sense without any external observer (except God if you take it as a
person, but that would be confusing).
Perhaps observer is too strong of a concept; so let me use a
somewhat weaker concept. Is anything possible without assuming
perspective – or if you prefer point of view -- (which implicitly
suggests the existence of an observer holding that perspective or
POV)?
The problem is that the notion of observer is far more complex than
the notion of natural numbers. Indeed we define the notion of observer
by machine, themselves defined by number relations.
If you use a notion of observer, you assume what I want to explain
from simpler notions on which everybody agree without any problem.
Then physical observation is defined by the relation between
numbers, and at that level, you can say, or not (depending on
different definition) that the physical exist only through the
observers. But be careful because this does not make disappear far
away planet without any observer on them. You can still say that
such realities depend on the observers, just not the human one, but
the entire range of possible observers which exists by the
infinities of arithmetical relations which involve them.
What about much weaker meanings of observer than conscious self-
aware observer. I am thinking of observer in the sense of anything
that is capable of performing a quantum measurement.
I don't assume the quantum, nor any physics, except that it has to be
Turing universal, if it exists. Then the quantum is derived from the
numbers, using only the addition and multiplication laws.
And if we are dealing in pure conceptual entities then a conceptual
entity capable of having a perspective on another entity.
We retrieve this from arithmetic and computer sscience (which is
embedded in the arithmetical reality).
Computationalism can be considered as an objective idealism. It
needs (immaterial) number relations, but not necessarily a starting
person or mind.
However these hypothesized numeric entities – in their own
relations, must per force be “aware” of each other… in some sense.
Not in some anthropomorphic sense of being self-aware human like
observers. Aren’t concepts, such as entanglement and perspective
needed in order for the whole system to function?
They are not. We just assume that there is no magic working at the
brain, and this at the meta-level. the tehory of evrything is entirely
giving by the axioms of Robinso arithmetic, or anything Turing
equivalent.
The whole theory can be derived from two axioms:
Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)
+ few identity rules, we don't even need logic, in this case. We can
explains numbers or combinators develop the belief in stars, comet and
physical realities, and, unlike physics, where consciousness comes
from, except for our belief in natural numbers (or equivalent) which
can still be used to justify why we cannot explains where the numbers
come from. So, computationalism offers the best possible solution to
the mind-body problem. (this does not make it true, of course, but I
am not doing philosophy, so I don't even debate of true or false,
because it is not my job, and it would confuse people, as the key
point here is that computationalism make a part of philosophy
(theology) into science).
Bruno
-Chris
Nevertheless, for the physical reality, you need a reasoner (given
by Gödel's []p), a knower (given by []p & p), a better ([]p & <>t),
and a feeler ([]p & <>t & p). Computationalism is itself obtained
internally by restricting the arithmetical interpretation of the
propositional letters to the sigma_1 sentences, which have the shape
ExP(x), with P decidable, as they models the computations (they even
emulate them, with Church's thesis).
Then, the advantage, is that we inherit the proof/truth splitting in
two of the logic of self-reference, which helps for the qualia and
the proper theological internal aspect of the arithmetical reality.
I hope this helps, but some good books on logic can help also, like
Mendelson, or Boolos-Jeffrey-Burgess books.
Bruno
-Chris
This means that "something" is non-contingent. It's necessary.
There is no such thing as the lack of all existent entities.
It is necessary for having an observer, or a dreamer, conceiving
nothing, but then you assume "we", which usually is among what we
would like to explain the existence. In all case we have to do some
assumption, notably about the thing we talk about before deciding if
they exist or not.
Like computationalism offers the best we can hope for the mind-body
problem, I think it does the same for the question of this thread.
It is a bit frustrating in the sense that it shows that there are
minimal thing that we will never explain the origin of (like the
"basic" Turing universal system).
Bruno
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word "exists" has no use because everything exists, it
seems important to know why everything exists. How is it that a
thing can exist? What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is
contained within is an existent entity. Then, you can use this to
try and answer the other question of "Why is there something rather
than nothing?".
If everything exists, what doesn't exist? Nothing.
If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?
-Chris
Brent
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
