> > Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean >> that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi >> proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown >> outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the >> pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing >> outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle >> can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, >> the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its >> diameter you get pi. >> >> >> But that proposition is not in the head of anybody. A body can get a >> representation of that proposition in some language (be it LISP or neural >> nets, or numbers): that is usually called a sentence, and *that* is in the >> head of the machine or the number. The proposition itself is what is >> intended by the sentence and the universal machine in presence. That pi is >> what you find by dividing the circle's circumference by the diameter is >> (true by definition), and that the sum of the inverse of all squared >> natural number is true, by a proposition proved by Euler. >> >> That is true. period. It was true before Euler proved it, and after, >> although this is only a metaphor. The number are just not concept to which >> time or space attribute can apply. >> >> There is no number, nor proposition, in a brain. You might find >> representations of number, and of propositions in the brain, but it makes >> no sense to say that a number is in a brain, or on the planet mars. >> >> Then a brain itself can be described as the representation of a universal >> numbers with respect to some other universal numbers. >> >> If you accept Church-Turing thesis, all computations exists in the >> elementary arithmetical reality, and in a very special redundant way, and >> we are there, and we must explain why the white rabbits are so rare and why >> the rabbit hole is so deep. The quantum almost solves that problem, but to >> solve the mind-body problem, we must justify why only the quantum works. >> >> Bruno >> > > Roger: I understand that the sentence, the words and the thought "divide a > circle's circumference by its diameter to get pi" are in the mind/head. > > > Yes. even in the mind/head of all universal machine, in the sense of > Turing-Church, which can be defined in arithmetic. > > But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and a > diameter. > > > This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the "platonic perfect circle"? Or > about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and a compass? >
Roger: A physically realized circle. There is no process outside the mind/head saying that if you divide the circumference by the diameter, the number 3.14... results. > > > Yes there is. For each choice of a universal numbers in N, you will have > an infinity of numbers which describes that process, like all programs > simulating Archimedes algorithm to compute Pi. Those programs and their > executions are entirely well defined in arithmetic. Some quite indirectly, > like the programs simulating the milky way, in string theory, just before > Archimedes discovered his algorithm. > > > > > > That process and the idea of even doing it are inside the mind/head. > > > But with computationalism everything is inside the mind/ead of the > universal numbers, even the idea that there is something outside the > mind/head of the universal machine. > Roger: If you believe in computationalism and arithmetical reality. > It will give 3.14 for all physical circles and their circumferences and > diameters outside the head, but the only thing outside the head is the > circle. > > > The platonic circle? Perhaps. > Roger: As above, a physically realized circle. > The process and the idea are inside the mind/head. > > > There are also in arithmetic, and in the mind/head of all universal > numbers, although they can focus on something else. > > > > The "what you find by dividing..." in your sentence also kind of implies > that an action needs to be taken by the observer. > > > OK, but the observer is defined by a relative number, or a couple of > universal numbers. We never go outside a tiny fragment of arithmetic, > except for the reasoning on the measure on the computational histories, > where analytical tools are not forbidden at the metalevel. > > Keep in mind that I do not assume a physical universe, if only because I > want a non circular explanation of matter and of the physical. > > Everett use computationalism to justify the absence of collapse, but this > works only if we can derive the SWE from the measure on *all* computational > "dreams" in arithmetic. > > Bruno > Roger: It just seems like we're starting out with different assumptions (arithmetical reality/computationalism versus physically existent entities), and I don't think we can resolve that one. But, that's okay. As I mentioned before, we'll all keep working our models and try and make some progress. > > -- 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.
