Your mathematical theology and truth/beauty, aristotle/plato, berkeley/newton, reminds me of David Deutsch's Constructor Theory. Here is an article from a physicist in Aeon magazine which highlights the dichotomy of physics v mathmatics, to my understanding.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-riddle-of-life Care to comment and illuminate. You UDA reminds me of this. -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 3:38 pm Subject: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain 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. -- 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.
