On 09 Feb 2016, at 02:34, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> You need the information that was in your biological brain
to be implemented in something physical so that it behaves in
the same way, but it makes no difference if the physics is done in
biology or electronics or tinker toys.
> Or in Robinson Arithmetic,
And because it is nonphysical the Robinson Computer Corporation
had zero manufacturing costs
Well, the sharks have not yet patented 0 and its successors, thanks God!
it dominated the entire IT industry and Raphael Robinson
became the world's first trillionaire in 1960. Oh wait...
To use a universal machine/number in the physical reality, you need to
implement it in the physical reality.
This is independent of the questions: is the physical reality just
another universal number (as it looks like empirically) and is that
universal number arising from the competition of (measure on) an
infinity of universal numbers states/computations, as implied by
(digital) Mechanism.
I can find many examples of a biological brain making a
calculation and of a silicon brain making a calculation and
even of a tinker toy making a calculation. Show me a example
of Robinson Arithmetic calculating *anything* without using
matter that obeys the laws of physics and I'll take your ideas
seriously.
I gave you many references. You need just to understand how the truth
of some arithmetical relations implement computations. It is not
obvious to understand, but the very idea is already in Gödel 1931
paper, notably for the computation of the primitive recursive
functions. It is delicate to explain as we need to describe the
computation in arithmetic, and it is easy to confuse the description
of the computation (a number) and the computation itself which is not
in that number, but in the true computable relation that such a number
describe.
But examples abound in the literature. I will avoid quoting an
example, because you jumped on the opportunistic confusion mentioned
above. It is really a confusion between the true fact that 2+2=4 and
the sequence of symbols "2+2=4"."
> given that it provides a Turing complete environment:
Big deal, so does the Conway's game of LIFE.
It is a big deal, yes.
> If something "physical" is at play, it has to be non Turing
emulable so as to make a difference from its arithmetical
implementation
What on earth are you talking about? You can make a Turing
machine out of electronics or you can make one out of tinker toys,
but you can't make one out of Robinson Arithmetic
False. Just study some basic papers, or ask question, but it is a
standard result that you can emulate a Turing machine in Robinson
Arithmetic. Indeed, all Turing complete system can emulate each others.
Read the section 5.5 of the book of Matiyazevich: Diophantine
simulation of Turing machine.
I already gave you the reference.
unless there is a brain made of matter that obeys the laws of
physics is thinking about Robinson Arithmetic.
In that case, a physical universal number, you, simulates (a bit) of
Robinson Arithmetic simulating a Turing machine, just to comprehend
the concept.
But, unless you changed your mind on the fact that 2+2=4 is true
independently of you, Robinson arithmetic emulates all Turing machines
independently of you.
> I keep my philosophy secret. It is none of your business.
That is of course your right but I must say you're not very good
at keeping secrets as nearly every one of your posts is full of your
philosophical ideas,
Not one. I deduce philosophical proposition from philosophical
hypothesis, and computationalism + Turing, Gödel & others makes this
possible because we have a transparent utterly clear, first order
logical and arithmetical, notion of universal system, or number (as I
fix the basic universal system as being Robinson Arithmetic---given
the reasoning does not depend on the choice of such "base").
If you still think there is any philosophical opinion expressed, it
just mean you have not yet understand the derivation, which is hardly
astonishing given that you admit to stop at step 3, for reason that
you have not yet been able to make clear.
in fact you talk about little else. As for me I'm not embarrassed by
my philosophy so see no reason to keep it secret.
Once I said that about mechanism I changed my mind a lot. You are a
mechanist, even a digital mechanist,but you stop reasoning for unknown
reason.
> Not with the computationalist theory of mind. The Carbon and
hydrogen are only used to implement an higher level of computation.
Abstract atoms always exist but the abstraction has no
effect on consciousness unless 23 physical Carbon atoms 28
physical Hydrogen atoms and 8 physical Oxygen atoms are
arranged in a certain way and put inside a physical brain. And
that fact makes no sense if physics is not needed for consciousness.
Physics has already been shown to be needed for consciousness, in the
theory that all universal number get by simple introspection. So no
worry here.
What you say go in the sense of the machine's theorems.
What is not needed is that the atoms, or time, or space, or energy are
primitive. They need on the contrary be recovered by a special
universal number (or collection of) emerging from the competition/
measure on the computations below our substitution level. That is
captured mathematically in the translation of the argument in
arithmetic by intensional variant of provability.
>> If physical implementation is not needed for
consciousness then why does this simple molecule have such a
profound effect on consciousness?
> Perhaps because that molecule imitates the action of some key
endogen molecules, perhaps used in state of intense stress or
difficultly.
That possible even probable, the simple physical salvia
molecule probably does mascaraed for some other simple physical
molecule normally found in the brain, but that doesn't explain why
any physical molecule could have such a profound effect on
consciousness if something physical is not needed for
consciousness.
Nobody ever said that the physical is not logically needed for (human)
consciousness.
But all universal number, even the non human, get also their
consciousness, and notably their stable qualia, through the physical,
which comes from the measure on the computation which "continue them".
To each universal (Löbian) machine, you have the
truth, p ("the one")
provability (beweisbar p, []p, "the intellect")
knowability ([]p & p, the soul, the knower) (already physical with p
sigma_1 = brought
by the Universal Doevtailer, UD).
observability ([]p & <>t, measure one observation, bet)
Sensibility ([]p & <>t & p, qualia).
This gives 8 notion intensional variants of the self, which are
provably equivalent by G*, and yet related to quite different logics.
Roughly said, the first person is intuitionist, the observer is
quantum).
> Once you are implemented through molecules and chemistry,
there is nothing strange that some molecules produces such effects.
I agree, but the key point is that it needs to be implemented and
molecules are physical.
The notion of implementation is an arithmetical notion, discovered
before we decide to implement computation in the diverse universal
numbers which exist physically.
If you agree that you don't have to drink two times two beers to get
the truth of 2+2=4, then it is just a theorem in arithmetic that the
computation exists and are implemented, either directly in terms of
elementary true additive+multiplicative relations, or by this or that
universal number which exists in arithmetic.
Note that the computation with oracle also exists in arithmetic, and
all this is not so more amazing that the discovery that the
arithmetical reality, the propositions true in the so-called standard
model of Arithmetic, is beyond all possible complete effective
theories. Only the computable (sigma_1) part is complete in some
sense, well, that is the discovery of the universal machine/number.
>> When anesthesia enters your brain it stops
working and your thoughts stop too until the anesthesia wears off
and your brain starts up again; If a bullet enters your brain
it will stop working too and it is reasonable to hypothesize your
thought's will also, but in this case the bullet never
wears off and instead your brain rots away and never starts up
again. If death means having a last thought (and I don't know what
else it could mean) then the bullet has caused your death.
> Only where the bullet has been shoot, but no everywhere else
in arithmetic or in a multiverse.
Arithmetic exists but that will not help me, but the multiverse
could.
Arithmetic emulates all machine possible experiences, of all length.
(assuming mechanism of course). Again read a good book on this, or ask
question, but it is long and a bit tricky to proof (all books explains
this in no less that 5 or much more pages).
Arithmetic emulates its own internal many-dream interpretation of
arithmetic. That follows easily from Gödel 1931. It is "well known".
A classical (platonist) version of this is testable, because this
entails that the logic of []p & <>p, with p sigma_1 has to be quantum
(assuming the physicists are right), and well, that has been shown to
be the case.
If the multiverse exists then I will not die, the gun will jam or
some other astronomically unlikely event will always prevent my
oblivion. If the multiverse exists then Cryonics will do no good
(or harm), but I am not willing to bet my life that the multiverse
exists because there is a lot of stuff about physics that
we know nothing about, hell until about 10 years ago we thought 4%
of the universe was the entire thing and were completely ignorant
about 96% of it. So I'm pretty sure the multiverse exists but
if I were a ancient Greek I'd be pretty sure the Earth was
surrounded by a crystalline sphere and the stars were dots painted
on it.
> You are again confusing the 1p logic and the 3p logic.
I know but my confusion is understandable because the idea that
there is actually a difference between "me" and "him" is so new
original and sophisticated.
No problem, I am patient. Just train yourself and when you get it,
use it in step 3.
Note that "me" is ambiguous, as it can be used for my body or digital
description (3p-self), and my current subjective experience (1p-self).
Both are self, but obeys different logic, both intuitively, this is
already the case in step 2, but also in arithmetic, where they are
translated into []p (3-self, Gödel self-reference) and []p & p
(already a non nameable Brouwerian creative subject).
But step 3 asks only for the restricted notion defined with the
diaries, and the 1p and 3p are distinguished by entering or not in the
"teleportation/duplication" machine.
Bruno
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
