Hi Bruno, I am not assuming a primary physical universe... precisely not. The idea is that self-awareness is ontologically primary and that this self-awareness, through its recursive structure, is awareness of all natural numbers (and possibly beyond) and thus it computes. We could then say it computes the physical universe, so that the latter comes out as a computation done by this absolute self-awareness.
You dismiss the problem of hardware/computing platform, but your own mathematical platonism serves to explain what the platform is. You assume the existence of numbers and then say that that existence facilitates the computations. In your account, the platonic realm of arithmetic IS the hardware/computing platform. I, on the other hand, do not want to take the ideal existence of numbers for granted. I want an explanation why they exist. Here I think the idea of absolute self-awareness, with its infinite recursivity, offers a powerful explanation of what the numbers are and why they are there, and why they are involved in computational processes. It's a matter of what is ontologially most basic. Here the idea of self-awareness strikes me as very attractive. Its circularity allows it explain itself. You probably have to talk me again through your idea of obtaining 1st person knowledge by applying Plato's definition of knowledge to Gödel -- I've forgotten the details I'm ashamed to admit... I would say: Self-consciousness => Recursivity => Number => Computation => Physical appearances => Human consciousness Ciao, Peter Op woensdag 26 augustus 2015 12:12:24 UTC+2 schreef Bruno Marchal: > > Hi Peter, > > I have not much time, but why to assume a (primary) physical universe. > There are no evdience for that. Also if my body is a machine", the universe > cannot be a machine, unless I am the universe (which I doubt). > > "Computation" is a pre -mathematical concept, and actually, an > arithmetical concept. Once you assume the basic laws of the natural > numbers, (mainly the laws of addition and multiplication), then, all > computations exist (in a sense cloase to "prime number exists": NOT in a > speical metaphysical sense), and the apperance of a physical universe is a > consequence of how the numbers perceive the infinitely many number > relations which run their computations. The physical reality would be, (if > my body is a machine) an internal aspect of arithmetic seen from inside > (and taking our relative personal indeterminacy into account). A priori > computationalism entails that neither Reality, nor the physical reality > needs to be computational. > > Then I can argue that computationalism explains consciousness, as another > modality of self-presence in arithmetic. Consciousness is the knowledge of > one 1-self, and we get it for free by just applying the most calssical > definition of knowledge to Gödel's (machine's) provability predicate. And > the theory is testable, as physics is explained in all details by that > theory of consciousness, so we can compare with nature (and its fits pretty > well, I would say). > > I don't know why people want hardware for computation, as there is no > evidence for hardware, nor can it explain anything (by the UDA result). > Computability is a purely arithmetical notion. It is a theorem that all > machines' "dream" exist in arithmetic. It is an open problem if that define > a universe, a multiverse, or only a multi-dream. > > You have NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL APPEARANCES => HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > On 26 Aug 2015, at 10:02, Peter Sas wrote: > > I thought Tipler's theory is that there will be an actual physical > computer that will be able to do all possible computations as the Universe > collapses - although since he came up with the idea it has been shown that > the Universe won't collapse in the required way. > > Yes, it's not Tipler's main theory, which is the one about > 'resurrection"... But he also suggested this idea: that the platonic > existence of mathematics might be enough for the simulation of physical > universes with consciousness in them... > > Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness a problem in the computerless >> computation scenario? >> > > Yes, this is an unfortunate formulation on my part. The hard problem is of > course a problem for all computational approaches.... Personally I take the > hard problem very seriously. I think it shows that consciousness cannot be > fully understood in computational terms: the what-it's-likeness of > consciousness, its involving qualia, cannnot be accounted for > computationally. I think this may give us a 5th option: > > (5) Consciousness, being inexplicable in computational terms, can be the > hardware that ontologically precedes the computations that ourput the > physical universe. How might this work? Here I would like to invoke an idea > from the American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce, who argued for the > infinite complexity of complete self-awareness. To be self-aware is to be > aware that one is self-aware, and aware that one is aware of one's > self-awareness... and son on. So, as Royce pointed out, there is a > recursivity to self-awareness that mirrors the recursion that generates the > natural number system. Similar ideas were brought forward by the German > philosopher/mathematican Oskar Becker. Anyway, what this suggests is that > if we postulate a primordial self-awareness as the foundation of all > reality, then that self-awareness through its recursivity could be said to > be aware of all natural numbers (the hierarchy of its reflective levels) > and thus also of all relations between them, i.e. all computable functions. > And since it is basically a self-awareness it singles out those algorithms > for 'special attention' that best mirror its self-awareness by forming > universes with conscious beings in them. Of course, the question remains > why one should postulate the existence of such an absolute self-awareness > as the basis of all existence. My guess is that such a self-awareness can > bootstrap itself into existence: if esse est percipi, then the ultimate > observer only exists because it observes itself. It has often been remarked > that there is a circularity in self-awareness. In my view this circularity > is what makes it causa sui. Royce's story then allows us to conceive of > this absolute self-awareness as a computer... The idea that an absolute > self-grounding self-awareness underlies existence can by the way be found > in Plotinus, the Indian vedanta and German idealism (Fichte, Schelling, > Hegel). Royce allows us to take this idealism into a computational > direction. It is something I am working on... > > Peter > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
