On 06 Mar 2016, at 22:47, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am not a proponent of Evolution as it is popularly
understood.
Given the fact that Evolution is as well verified as anything in
Science if I were you I'd clarify that remark mighty damn quick,
otherwise people are likely to think you're a bit of a dunderhead.
You are quoting Samya here. I let her clarify.
Have you seen the video by Perry Marshal? I have no objection to it,
and I would have said that it is the orthodox way to understand
Darwin. I like it because it eliminate directly the idea of
"intelligent design", and go closer to the idea of succession of more
and more locally well-adapted layers of intelligence, which provably
exist in arithmetic, and empirically exist in biology, where the
"intelligence" is the intelligence of the universal machine or
machinery. It is coherent with all what I said about intelligence,
bacteria and Turing-complete machine.
Now, the well-adaptation makes some machine believe they are
intelligent, or that they are the favorite of The Glass-of-Beer, which
they conceive as a sort of personal father, or judge) and that is the
beginning of ... stupidity.
> I think we are pretty open in this list.
It's good to be open minded, but not so open all your brains fall
out
> The-Glass-of-Beer created the Natural Numbers, and said
"Nice!"
Exactly how did the glass of beer do that? And if the Natural
Numbers need to be created in order to exist why is it that a glass
of beer does not need to be created in order to exist? The
glass of beer theory has no answers to any of these questions and it
has no predictive of explanatory ability, thus is not a viable
theory.
I agree. The details will depends on the theology (defined by The
Glass of Beer Theory).
Logicians knows that we cannot derive the existence of the natural
numbers from any theory which does not assume them implicitly (through
a Turing complete theory) or explicitly (ny taking a theory of
arithmetic, like RA, or PA, or ZF, etc.).
So we have to assume them (implicitly or explicitly) in all
circumstance, unless we posit irrational things like ex-nihilo
creation, or events without cause, etc.
As you know, my theory is Robinson Arithmetic, we assume the numbers
explicitly, through the succession, addition and multiplication
axioms, and the constant 0).
But we could have use the theory of combinators, in which case, the
existence of the numbers (or the RA axioms) become theorem(s). See
Smullyan's book "To Mock a Mockingbird to see how to find combinators
which satisfy RA axioms).
Now, at the meta-level we use the intuitive theory of numbers, based
on the notion of arithmetical truth (that e can define in a theory
like ZF, or in second-order logic), so the machine's glass-of-beer
theory where The Glass-of-beer is the arithmetical reality or the
arithmetical truth (or the so called standard model N of RA or PA)
works well, as you can interpret N created the natural numbers simply
by N satisfies RA axioms, for example.
Of course, I was paraphrasing Kronecker statement ("God created the
natural numbers, all the rest is a man construction"), except that
with mechanism, we can take this much more literally: the glass-of-
beer created the natural numbers (with their law of addition and
multiplication), and (and that is the new thing) all the rest emerges
from them, or a construction by them.
Indeed, once you have the numbers with addition and multiplication,
you have already a Turing universal reality which satisfies (assuming
it to be consistent!) the existence of all computations, and thus with
mechanism, of digital machine dreams, from which the psychological and
material will appear to be modes of self-reference.
Bruno
> Then HE/IT/SHE told to the numbers to add, and when seeing
the result he said "Cool!" Then HE/SHE/IT told the numbers to
multiply, and when seeing the result he said ... "Oops".
And then the glass of beer told the numbers to divide, and when
zero obeyed and did so the glass of beer said "behold a Black Hole".
John K 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.
