The craziness of academics is something I have heard of, so yes, nobody needs to lose their job over profound conversations, but administrators and rivals do like their power. My only point on eliminating network nodes, was that if information is lost, eliminated, then the truth is lost. If the truth is that a past belief, or idea is proven wrong, then it still needs to be stored as available data for future reference. Theology sounds good if its useful, but if there is a chief mind in the universe, (not mine!) it might do us good, if we were properly introduced. The ego seemingly is an emerged property of the universe, and thus has an evolutionary path or success, I am guessing. With nature it either succeeds of it doesn't, correct?
I am disappointed that Deutsch doesn't think that mathematics is a science, and perhaps Deutsch would be well-served by a professional boxing match with Max Tegmark. For me, the validity of a science is as Vanevar Bush stated, was "its ability to predict." But, personally, the validity of a science is what we learn, and how it can help us? -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Mar 4, 2016 3:59 am Subject: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain On 03 Mar 2016, at 14:37, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: To counter your agrument on eliminating ego (Hindu Buddhist Stoacist) I would think that maintaining ego, mitigates against corruption of data, as have been advocated by the above, (just let it go!) which, destroys the relationship of, at least, old truths. Thus, with olbiteration, one loses the differences between Goedel (sp?) and Cantor, or Napoleon and de Sade, or Mao and Churchill.This is akin to wiping out nodes on an network, thus, transmission and identity because impossible, and therefore, useless. ? all errors in theology and philosophy can be seen as an obliteration of the nuance brought by incompleteness (like proof-truth, belief-knowledge, knowledge-truth, observable-knowable, etc.). Cf the fact that G* proves the equivalence (with p sigma_1) between p []p []p & p []p & <>p []p & <>p & p but G (incompleteness) does not. So I have no clue what obliteration you allude too. mechanism introduce tuns of nuances usually obliterarted by most. Your viewpoints are very similar to an academic in the US, a former software engineer who became a professor at William Pastterson University in New Jersey, Eric Steinhart. He, loves math, as you do, and his views on ego (Buddhistic) are just as yours seem to be. Or, is it considered "weird" in academia that one academic contact another, without a proper introduction, say, at a conference? I am an unemployed (currently) nonacademic so I am ignorant of professional practices. You might give look at his work and send him an email? Unless I confuse him with someone else, I think I read a book by him sometimes ago. Note also that citing my name is enough to lost you job (I know cases). My price disappear without explanation, a part of the academic is everything but transparent on this. Some non agnostic atheists seem influent, not just in the media. If you think to see an interesting relation worth to be detailed, write a paper. But you need to focus on ideas before comparing people work. I also recommend the book by DJ Cohen(*). It is a revelation form, as it shows that modern logic was too made by people interested in making theology come back to science, but that was at a time when even mathematics was not yet considered as science, and in the process of professionalization of logic, the theological motivation was forced to be hidden, and eventually abandoned. As I said, that is nice for the birth of professional mathematics, but was and still is a disaster for the professionalization of (non confessional) theology. BTW, David Deutsch seems to believe still today that mathematics is not a science. At least Einstein got the point thanks of being near Gödel at the end of its life. Usually, people who does not grasp that mathematics is a science confuse the use of the mathematical language in applied science and the research in mathematics. In fact they confuse also theories and models, and the vocabulary is not helpful (a term like model is used in opposite sense by physicist and logician). Once I made a talk with logicians and physicists in the audience. When the logicians saw that the physicists have no problem with what I said on quantum mechanics, they declare that physics has gone crazy. When the physicist saw that the logicians have no problem with what I said on incompleteness, they declare that logics has gone crazy. Without students and philosophers to calm them down, I think they would have come to hands. The logicians were just reacting by incredulity on quantum mechanics; some have realized that day that QM *is* really weird though. But physicist were just reacting by a lack of knowledge and understanding of mathematical logic, notably with the confusion of levels which is normal with anyone discovering logic. Some physicists were just sure that it makes no sense to use complex mathematics to prove that "2+2=4" is provable, but they were unable to distinguish the difference between proving that 2+2=4, and proving that ""2+2=4" is provable" is provable in some theory. Some understood the conceptual difference, but could not swallow that the difference play the big role in the development of the (meta)-theory and that we must keep that difference in mind. (*) D.J. Cohen. Victorian Faith and Pure Mathematics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. -----Original Message----- From: spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Mar 3, 2016 8:19 am Subject: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain 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. -- 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.
