Hi Chris,
My computer, perhaps, makes hard to delineate the quotes below, but it
seems we agree, and I appreciate your kind comment.
The problem of "explaining things from nothing" is that it is
ambiguous about what is assumed, and of the nature of what is assumed
(physical, psychological, mathematical, number-theoretical,
theological, etc.)
Mechanism starts from the following assumption:
1) that your (my, our) consciousness exists,
2) that it can be related to the "activity" of a mechanism (local,
determinist). "activity" in the general arithmetical sense.
3) that it is invariant for some digital transformation at some level
("yes" doctor).
The conclusion is that a realm-complete theory is given by any first
order logical specification, with equality, of any universal system/
machine/programming-language.
I use the arithmetic of Robinson(RA) to fix the thing(*).
All the rest is given by the internal phenomenology implied by the
incompleteness phenomenon, all having necessary parts and contingent
parts, on which the indetermination are defined.
(*) RA is:
0 ≠ s(x) (= 0 is not the successor of a number)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y (different numbers have different successors)
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) (except for 0, all numbers have a predecessor)
x+0 = x (if you add zero to a number, you get
that number)
x+s(y) = s(x+y) (if you add a number x to a successor of a number y,
you get the successor of x added to y)
x*0=0 (if you multiply a number by 0, you get 0)
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x (exercise)
Everything is defined either directly in that theory (like Gödel's
"[]p", and []p & <>t),
Or is defined in term of all particular propositions, but not directly
in the theory, like []p & p, []p & <>t & p.
It is not obvious that such a theory is Turing-complete, that is
Turing Universal. Yet that is "well known" by the logicians. (good
proof are in Epstein & Carnielli, and in Boolos, Jeffery, Burgess). A
much stronger result is in Matiyasevich.
The incompleteness makes this giving a canonical intuitionist subject
living in a quantum reality. Where the subject-observer is defined by
the arithmetical predicate of its beliefs, which is a defined by any
consistent extension of the axioms above + the infinitely many
induction axioms:
(F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x), with F(x) being a formula in
the arithmetical language (with "0, s, +, *), and the logical symbols
as said above.
This explains the quantum, matter, as the observable (defined by a
notion of bet) common to all universal machines, or the digital as
sees by the digital (and that is not digital!).
Consciousness itself is almost entirely explained by the "belief in a
reality", or an instinctive (automated) act of faith, and the theory
above gives an explanation why there is a gap which must sound to us
non justifiable, like the act of faith to the doctor, or the belief in
numbers and induction.
Bruno
On 09 Jan 2015, at 08:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
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
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
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.
In making the case for something out of nothing, simple seems like a
most important virtue; I take what you are saying about the
centrality of simplicity. And agree that the full blown self-aware
conscious observer is complex, but what about much simpler precursors?
Is elementary perspective also orders of magnitude more complex than
the notion of countable entities? How can natural numbers existing
by themselves with no other qualities suffice? If 1,2,3, …, N are
not aware of each other or ordered with respect to each other they
have no function. Numbers depend on other numbers and crucially
operators. A single natural number by its lonesome self does not get
us very far.
It seems to me that numbers assume certain constituent qualities
that come built right into them from the start conceptually. For “1
+ 1 = 2” to be true we must introduce the two operators (summation,
assignment). These operators need to know what they are dealing
with. For example “x + y = z” certainly tells us some things
about the internal relationships of [x,y,z]
But without other knowledge we will never know the values of these
entities.
I am quite sympathetic to the mathematical hypothesis and
computationalism, it appeals to my sensibility and seems elegant and
certainly no more complex than hard materialism. However, and
probably also due to my own ignorance and partial understanding of
everything, I still find myself to some extent casting about and
doubting.
Still, in all, it is a most beautiful voyage… this voyage into the
abstract, and I very much enjoy the many lively discussions on here.
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.
It is not clear to me, how the observed laws of physics that have
led us to our best current models are all emergent from the set of
natural numbers and the small set of axioms in Peano arithmetic.
That it is not clear to me, is neither here nor there, and I
appreciate what a patient person you are. Many must have asked
similar questions; is there an everything list FAQ?
We retrieve this from arithmetic and computer sscience (which is
embedded in the arithmetical reality).
Ok
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.
Ok
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).
Ok, this last paragraph I like. Anything that can simplify the
everything problem space J
-Chris
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.
--
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.
