On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons
arising from nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value
of 0, the greater cosmos must be densely packed with energy or
information, as yet difficult to access by contemporary technology.
How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell? If you go by
Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as
Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer,
allegedy, as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a
computer is more complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer.
The laws of physic, if you go computationalism, must be derived from
any universal computing system. I took sigma_1 arithmetic, which is a
tiny part of the arithmetical reality, which is true/false
independently of us, by the arithmetical realism (needed to just
define what a computation is). With computationalism, we cannot
presupposed physics. There is no ontological physical reality: it is a
sort of collective hallucination made by universal numbers.
Schmidhuber disbelieved (in this very list) the first person
indeterminacy (FPI). The physical reality seems to be still a
computation among others, but this is violated a priori by the FPI.
But then you are right. Like with quantum field theory, the void
contains a sort of infinite energy. 0 = infinity, somehow. It is a
form of 0_3p is seen as infinity-1p. Intuitively this is because the
nothing physical is equivalent with the everything-arithmetical from
inside: all universal numbers do nothing, *notably*.
We have not yet anything like a Planck cell. What we can extract is a
collection of quantum logics, and we can hope for braids, unitary
transformation, a notion of subjective time, but we have not yet
space, nor physical time, nor particles, waves, etc.
You might perhaps reread the SANE04 paper(*), or others. I don't think
other author are aware of the FPI, or take it into account.
The point is that the "basic" computer is given by the laws of
addition and multiplication of numbers, when we do the theory in an
explicit way. I could have use lambda expression, or combinators, etc.
Matter and consciousness are "ontological-theory-independent".
The logical dependencies are given by: NUMBERS ==> CONSCIOUSNESS ==>
PHYSICAL REALITIES, but the mathematical details are given by the
interview of the Löbian machine (they involved 8 modalities).
Bruno
(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way.
As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want.
I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the
software yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect.
Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you
can count on you, is run by a software.
Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists),
is a side effect.
But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable.
The apparent emulability of nature is a problem for the
computationalists, but with computer science it becomes a
mathematically formulable problem.
The idea is very simple, once you are aware of some result in
computer science, notably the fact that once you agree that a tiny
part of the arithmetical reality, or any other computer-science
theoretical reality, is independent of you and me.
This is implicitly used in physics, through the use of mathematical
theories, usually richer than arithmetic, but this is debatable.
But that reality, conceptually much simpler than physics, or physics
+ a creator, contains the experience you are living here and now.
That is a *fact*. All executions of all programs can be translated
into an infinity of purely arithmetical relations, that is the fact,
but then, once you assume computationalism, you can understand that
your consciousness is not related to this or that realization by
this or that universal numbers, but, below your substitution,
results from the statistics on a infinity of those arithmetical
realizations of programs execution.
An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI,
We can't a priori assume QM, but semantically and intuitively,
computationalism forces a similar move than Everett, but not on the
universal unitary transformation, just on the sigma_1 part of
arithmetic. The sigma_1 part is the computable part, it is the
Turing emulable part of the arithmetical reality, which extends
considerably in the non computable part.
By the FPI, we are undetermined on that collection of realizations.
By computer science, it has what is needed for an abstract measure,
hopefully with the right groups.
or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle the energy
issue, quite well.
Energy is the constant 0. The nothing physical, which already
emulate largely the physical reality. But this is from observation,
and with computationalism (and the mind-body problem in mind) we
need to derive even this from the arithmetical mind-body problem.
But it works. Things have been done at the propositional level.
And thanks to incompleteness, the notion of truth acts like a notion
of God for the machine, which makes possible an interpretation of
Plotinus.
It just won't consume an infinite right here, in this universe or
domain. In fact, energy may just be software, in a level or reality
above us.
With comp you can start from the bottom, you assume only what you
need for defining your favorite universal reality, and you derive
the laws coupling minds and stable realities from mathematical
logic, and mathematics.
I use arithmetic because it is taught in high school.
The real debate is not on the existence of God, (which is rather
obvious), it is on the existence of the Physical Universe.
Is there a physical universe? Aristotle seems to have believe this.
Plato was open to the idea that the physical universe is only an
aspect of a simpler deeper reality, and some tradition have defended
the idea that the deeper reality might be arithmetical or
mathematical. Even in that case, computationnalism makes it
impossible to reduce the whole of truth to a 3p reality, so comp
prevents even the reduction in that part. It is the price of
consistency (<>t).
Consciousness/conscience (<>t inference) accelerates the path toward
truth.
Alas,
Lies ([]f = ~<>t, or "worst" []<>t, can too. Delusions can help, but
you cut your link with the main deities <>t, G*, Z1*, X1*.
Here we are at the beginning, and I describe only the theology of
the correct, never lying machine. The theology of the liar is a much
more complex subject. Fortunately, it does not seems liars are
required to extract physics from arithmetic. It is less clear for
the biological evolution, where preys and predator can lie to each
others.
Bruno
Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to
infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe
emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated
to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first
person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting
that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be
saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR
we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an
infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our
minds each time we look at the details of the simulation].
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of
reality may indeed not have been a super mind, except in power.
Kind of like gnosticism, maybe.
2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is
not controversial, although not well known by philosophers,
logicians know this since Gödel, Kleene, etc.
What is not trivial is that it leads to "new equation" for
fundamental physics (given by the FPI, translated in the
intensional variant of self-reference, making comp testable in some
sense).
The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be
succeedingly better.
But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists
ontologically.
People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to
processes getting pipelined as with software engineering. We would
be one on a gigantic processes, aka programs, aka cellular
automata, that are copied and then initiated later. As with
Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us, eventually begin
their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other papers I
have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or
god, would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that
evolution (to me) must be a primary program. Thanks for your
coment.
Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to
infinities of computations, and the appearance of the universe
emerges from a statistics on all computations. Bostrom participated
to this list but seems to not have yet taken into account the first
person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me at some meeting
that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still be
saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR
we are in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an
infinite amount of energy to lie to us, as they must change our
minds each time we look at the details of the simulation].
Bruno
Mitch
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]
> wrote:
> John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars
Disputandi of an eric steinhart paper, on the theological
implications of the simulation argument. This is the only copy I
downloaded of the url, but I was able to do a download and print
at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be an atheist, but
believes there was a creator and now a system of creators above
and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god,
but don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with
the feedback. I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I
will guess that you will not see it this way. Which is good with me.
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart
Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive
simulations it doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's
simulating us must be smarter than we are, and it would be a
pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is. A simulated
hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do
than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated
Chess grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess
grandmaster who wrote the Chess program. And even if the
simulation argument is true (and the restriction on the number of
calculations that can be performed in the observable universe may
rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked
on by our simulators) you wouldn't have all the knowledge that
the infinite number of simulations below you have. Steinhart also
seems to assume that every event have a cause, but I know of no
law of logic that demands that.
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.
--
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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
