On 29 Feb 2016, at 00:47, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Did any civilization, other then the Attic Greeks, produce a number
based theology or philosophy such as the Greats of Greek philosophy?
I almost want to think the Hindus did at about the same time? I am
quite sure they have not come up with the same ideas as Greeks.
That are interesting questions, and hard to answer. The more I dig on
this, the more I think that many interesting ideas where circulating
in Persia, India, ... Pythagorus was a big traveller who seemed to
have sum up years of progress in science/technology including the
listening to others strategy (dialog).
Somewhere between -8000 and -6000, according to some scholars, people
in Africa knew the many solutions of the diophantine x^2 + y^2 = z^2
"pythagorean triplets equations", explained in cuneiform on tablet in
argilus..
I think the indians discovered and recognized the zero, a giant step
in math (and in theology).
Nothing *does* count.
Chinese and Japanase, perhaps some indians used it for long, but
without naming it, by their wood stick algorithm
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SZw8jpfAk0)
I don't find example with a zero, like 108 X 411, but the wood stick
algorithm does still work, you just need to use an invisible wood (!),
and that's what the chinese did, using zero by a space without a wood.
A brilliant tool of the mind seemed to have hide a brilliant discovery!
But Indians got it. It is the country of Ramanujan, after all.
The idea that numbers (or eequivalent in some vague sense) might be
related with a (rationalist) theology is implicit in the "the question
of king Milinda". According to scholars Milinda was Ménandre (french)
name for a known greek antic king.
I think it makes no sense, except as a discovery of a stable reality
in our mind, with the same usual migrant problem and so you get the
negative numbers, the fractions, the irrationals, the reals, the
complex, the quanternions, the octonions, the sedenions, if not the
surreal game of Conway, and Cantor and beyond, or *many* organizations
of numbers, or eventually the intensional universal numbers, which are
those who dreams and reflects each others. John Case invoked the Indra
Net, and arithmetic is full of multilayered structures determined by
angle (points of view).
Anyway, it is in the head of all universal number. Do you know that
you are, at the least, a universal number (even if you might be more
than that of course: that is true even if mechanism is false!).
Keep in mind that mechanism does not choose numbers or combinators.
Any universal Turing system would do. In the reality where it is the
cuttlefish which get civilized, they use K (with their mouth) and S
with their tentacles, and made brilliant mathematics without ever
using numbers, except as uninteresting combinators, but they to soon
or later will see the interest, because all universal system have
their word to say in the big picture.
Also, mechanism explains why the numbers are confronted to many non
enumerable realities.
(and I use numbers as we know them from school), but the progress are
like that:
1) succession
(beauty and order, decidable)
2) addition
(more beauty and order, still decidable)
3) multiplication.
Shit happens. The eternal war between freedom and security starts.
4) induction axioms
Not only shit happens, but the universal machine knows that shit
happens unavoidably, especially when assuming that shit does not
happen (~[] f ).
There, the consistent machines and gods become forever undecided,
learning to live with the partially computable and the partially
highly non computable to which they are necessarily confronted.
In arithmetic the gods can see larger portion of truth, but even for
them, it helps them only to see how much they know nothing.
Yet some laws works, and are invariant on many levels.
In arithmetic, the more you know, the more you know that you don't
know.
Physicists measure numbers, and predict relations between numbers.
That there is a reality from which those numbers come from is a
metaphysical assumption, and well, mechanism illustrates it is not an
easy problem, but we have some tools in mathematical logic to proceed.
In science, we never claim we possess the truth, same in theology when
done with the (religious) humility. What we can do, is to propose
clear and precise theories, and means to test them.
The purely mathematical theology of the universal Turing machine
(which knows she is Turing universal) is physically testable, as
physics is part of that theology.
In arithmetic, machines and "man" (in the Plotinus sense of discursive
reasoner) are sort of baby gods, confronted to tuns of divine exams).
The universal machine is more a terrible child than the one Leibniz
and Hilbert hoped for, or that your laptop might let you think at
first sight.
Mathematics is not theology, but with the mechanist assumption
mathematics provides tools to study the relation between the
computable and its non computable semantics, etc.
The numbers or the combinators per se are not important, it is the
closure of the set of the (semi)-computable functions for
diagonalization which is important, it makes consistent Church-thesis,
and gives the price.
To be immortal you can do two things: either put your little ego in a
security prison (excessive-motherhood solution) or you can kill the
little ego while alive, and getting that it is not the important part
after all.
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 10:52 am
Subject: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain
On 28 Feb 2016, at 03:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Theology remains stupid because it's the study of
nothing,
> It is the science of God. If your theory says there is no God,
that is still a theology,
If your field of study is the fact that 2+2 =5 and I show the 2+2 is
not equal to 5 then what more is there to say about your field of
study?
>In the theology of Plato [....]
TO HELL WITH THEOLOGY AND TO HELL WITH PLATO!
> your perpetual use of primary matter
TO HELL WITH PRIMARY MATTER!
You can sum up Plato by "to hell with primary matter", so you
contradict yourself.
> confirms that you seem to believe in Aristotle god:
TO HELL WITH ARISTOTLE AND TO HELL WITH GOD!
OK, nice, again this is equivalent, in your language, with "to hell
with primary matter", but of course contradicts again "to hell with
Plato".
Plato is just the doubt of primary matter. Aristotle is just the
quick coming back to primary matter.
> With the definition of god of the greek, indian, chinese,
there is no doubt that everybody believe in God.
Yes, even I believe that grey vague blobs that do nothing of
importance exist.
Your usual trick: changing the definition.
I thought we did define God by the origin of all things, the
creator, or the reason of reality or everything real, including you
BTW, and you did provide evidence that you consider you as important
(which might be your motivation for immortality, also).
God is the nickname of the primary reality from which all others
will be derived. It is a way to not decide in advance if it what we
see (a physical universe) or something else (like the arithmetical
reality for the (neo)pythgoreans).
Of course we don't know if such a god exists, but it is the faith of
the rationalist to get the best possible theory of that primary
reality.
> The interesting question is not if God exists or not, but
what is the nature of God:
That's easy, God is a grey vague blob that probably doesn't exist
and would make no difference even if He did because He does nothing.
If God exists the universe doesn't need Him.
But with the definition of God, on which 99,9% agree: if God did not
exist, nothing would exist.
Of course by changing the definition you can make a good pun.
>> Name one time I invoked "primitive matter" in my
arguments that intelligence needs matter. ONE TIME!
> But then why do you disagree with anything I said,
I've disagreed when you said matter is not needed for intelligence,
I made clear I was talking on Primary Matter.
but as I've said over and over and over and over, matter or may
mot be primary but it is certainly needed for intelligence.
That is ambiguous at the extreme.
> given that all what I say is that the notion of primary
matter is epistemologically contradictory
I don't care if that matter is primary or not.
My point in this thread was that I consider dangerous to say "yes"
to an unknown doctor of the future, and that it was vain if the goal
was immortality.
It seems to me that you did use the idea that some matter was needed
to be assumed for an implementation of the relevant program could
"be conscious". My answer was that it was needed only for being
conscious relatively to our normal (physical) worlds/computations,
but that elementary arithmetic was enough for the normal computation
continuing the dying process (in that case).
If you were not assuming implicitly that your notion of matter was
primary, your argument would not have gone through.
You might have change your mind since, but then indeed, our
conversation can be closed.
I'd better repeat that because apparently you're a little hard of
hearing: I DON'T CARE IF MATTER IS PRIMARY OR NOT. Should I say it
again?
So please try to stop using argument that a Turing machine needs
matter to be thinking, because it needs only non primary matter. I
did show that arithmetic
1) has to provide it if mechanism is correct (by the UDA(*))
2) gives serious clues that such no primary matter, which here is
only a mode of self-reference relative to sigma_1 sentences
(AUDA(*)), obeys quantum logic and describes alternate sets of
computations. Something explaining, and being retrospectively
confirmed by quantum mechanics without wave packet reduction (which
is the reason of this list: the appreciation of Everett).
UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument)
AUDA (Arithmetic Universal Dovetailer Argument)
In the sane04 paper, it is the section 1 and 2.
we are in the paradigm of Aristotle theology.
Speak for yourself.
That is a bit unfair. Given that I show that mechanism, both
intuitively and formally, contradict Aristotle, and that is shocking
only for bigot Aristotelians.
> Only professional theologian knowing Plato
Given the fact that there is no knowledge there for a theologian to
know I don't see how a knowledgeable theologian differs from a
ignorant theologian. And there is no way any ancient Greek could be
of the slightest help is solving modern scientific or mathematical
or philosophical problems.
That's because you confuse, or were confusing, science with
Aristotle theology. By not caring on the abyssal difference between
matter and primary matter, you avoid the problem of what we need to
assume minimally in the theory of everything. Computationalism is
based on the notions of computations and require Church thesis to
get a mathematical definition, and it can be shown that we cannot
deduce the existence of a universal system without assuming at least
one. Very elementary arithmetic is enough.
The greek theology has given both physics (mainly by more or less
implicit aristotelians) and mathematics.
And I gave you a reference on a books which shows that even the
modern mathematical logic is born from motivation in neoplatonist
theology, including to take distance with dogma, and elevate the
rigor in the reasoning.
Unfortunately, in the professionalization process of mathematics,
the mathematicians and the mathematical logicians took some distance
with that philosophical and theological motivation. That was indeed
good for the mathematical sciences, no doubt, but that was bad for
the process of professionalization of non confessional theology,
that is "greek" theology. There is no dogma nor revelation in the
public greek theology.
> science has not decided between Plato and Aristotle
Yes it has, science decided about 400 years ago that both are
irrelevant.
Irrelevant with respect to what?
Fundamental science is the search of what is and what is not.
The current paradigm is Aristotelian. Most people believe that there
is a physical universe, and the weak materialist conceives it as
primary. Even most religious people believe it to be quasi-primary,
up to some creation by some god.
And a modern reader interested in philosophy would do much better
studying Einstein or Darwin.
Einstein is not bad in religion, and was at least aware that his
aristotelianism was religious, although with an impersonal god. But
Gödel was even more serious on this and open to the idea that
theology comes back in science.
> The epistemological existence of the appearance of matter is
a consequence of arithmetic.
Even if you're right about that it wouldn't change the fact that
matter is required for intelligence.
Yes, that is exactly what is proved, and illustrated, with the non
primary matter, which is only a first person plural sharable mode of
the universal Turing machines or numbers.
And I don't know that you're right, t here is at least as
much evidence that you've got it backwards and matter implies the
existence of arithmetic;
They are bounded together in the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality.
From inside, it looks like much bigger than the sigma_1 reality.
The physical is basically the bound of the sigma_1 arithmetical
reality as seen from inside arithmetic by the universal numbers.
> some mathematical realism independent of any language or
formal system used to described it.
Why mathematical realism ? Mathematics is a language
just as English is, so you could just as easily call it English
realism.
There is a mathematical language and an english language. But the
realism is not about the language but on the theories written in the
languages.
The sentence "the boson exists" exists, independently of the
existence of the boson in the physical reality.
Likewise the sentence "2+2=4" exists in arithmetic independently of
being true or false in the arithmetical reality.
Once you agree that matter might not be primary, you have to be open
to other primary axioms. We have to assume something, and the beauty
of computationalism is that we do not need more than to assume the
natural numbers and the axioms of succession, addition and
multiplication. I put already the induction axioms in the
epistemology of some beings existing by the succession, addition and
multiplication axioms only.
> we can no more postulate a primary physical reality,
But I can postulate the in your next post you will continue to drone
on about how matter is not primary even though it has nothing to do
with matter being needed for intelligence.
As I said, I did this because you did use implicitly primary matter
to refute one of my point in the thread. If you agree that matter
might not be primary, then the point you made is refuted at the start.
You can no more say that pure arithmetic can't generate
consciousness by invoking the money success of physical computer
corporation, because in the arithmetical reality too consciousness
needs the appearance of matter to develop and differentiate, and
make money by selling physical computers. But they are only first
person sharable invariant Turing Number's observable.
Bruno
John 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
