On 18 Feb 2015, at 15:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Well, I agree with your ascension of Numbers, Consciousness,Physical
Realities.
You can understand intuitively why it has to be like that with the
self-multiplication thought experiment, and you can understand the
formal result that all "ideally correct" machine can find that by
themselves, once believing enough induction axioms.
I will check out the SANE4 learnings, The numbers that we start with
could just as easily be a statistical process control computation,
To define computations, you need to assume the numbers, or Turing
equivalent.
that started everything, run by someone is a vastly, upper universe-
a conjecture.
Mathematician, Louis Crane suspected that universes have been
started by civilizations creating useful power sources and
accidentally create other beings within the black hole's cosmos. Do
I believe this? No. Getting back to numbers, we are at philosopher
John Leslie's concept that numbers consciousness and physical
realities are part on a series/set of infinite divine minds. This is
sort of why I like Steinhart's philosophy of computationalism, where
in the beginning, or in the original archaic Hebrew, "at a
beginning" there was a singular hardware that created the software.
But the software is an arithmetical concept. That follows from one
half of comp: Church thesis.
And assuming computationalism, that is the idea you can survive
through a digital emulation done at some level, the question of the
existence, and definition, of a physical universe is open. We can't
use a "physical universe" to singularize consciousness, It is no more
valid.
More importantly, the guy uses software terms to model the
universe(s). So in his theology we have pipes and pipelines,
processes, and promotions of the software in physical form, which
everything is, and the data patterns will get moved. It parallels a
bit your own work.
I have no read it, but it would not be so astonishing, because, like
Plotinus, all universal machine get it at some point. Simple
arithmetic can already enlighten itself, with the price that it can
lost itself, also. No need, nor possible use, of hardware for that.
The use of hardware, or of any universal numbers actually, becomes a
misuse of a god, as a gap prohibiting question. To save a primary
matter, you can still develop a non-computationalist theology, but the
math will be awfully complex, and it would be, given the evidence a
bit like betting that QM is not really linear, before having any
evidence.
You need to grasp that by yourself. Study the 8 steps, and ask any
question. To really understand step 7, you need to understand Church
thesis, the existence of the universal machine, and the fact that it
is an arithmetical notion. Step 8 is more demanding in "philosophy of
mind issue".
For the formalization, you need to study a good book in logic and
computability, or ask enough question. All recreative (and non
recreative) book by Smullyan can help. I exploit results by Gödel, Löb
and Solovay (among others) to translate the problem in terms of
intensional variant of provability, it plays some role that I don't go
out of arithmetic in doing so.
Computationalism includes Church thesis, and thanks to this, we get
the math, and precise theories, which even in the simple ideal correct
case, leads to rich layered mathematical theories for each points of
view. And the material one is testable (accepting the greek analysis
of knowledge) and can be compared with the observation (up to now it
fits).
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From
quantum theory to dialectics?
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 [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.
