On 20 Jun 2016, at 01:05, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Chalmers' enunciation of the problem assumes a physical universe
(= making it primitive).
That is why, well that's one reason why, you're so very very
confused; the existence of the the physical universe does not imply
that physics must be primitive (although it could be) anymore than
the existence of molecules implies that molecules must be primitive.
I never said the contrary.
> I do think that when we assume mechanism [blah blah]
Nobody needs to assume mechanism because it can be demonstrated.
That is just ridiculous. But if you have a demonstration, please give
it to us.
> your step-3 confusion.
If one isn't confused by gibberish then one doesn't have critical
thinking skills.
I gave you the precision asked, but you came back without using them
again and again.
> Calculation have been defined mathematically,
And a definition can't calculate one damn thing; never has never will.
That shows that the definition of calculation cannot calculate.
But calculation calculated, independently of being interpreted in
Arithmetic or in any other Turing complete possible reality, be it
implemented in the physical reality or not.
> You seem to introduce an invisible God (matter, the atoms, ...)
Unlike God matter and atoms are NOT invisible.
You (again) seem to play with the words. If you need to assume a
physical reality, it is primitive by definition.
And obviously, given the context, I was alluding to the primary or
primitive notion of matter.
If you insist on changing the language and calling matter "God" then
you're going to have to invent a new work for a invisible conscious
person who created the universe, but such a word game is not science
or mathematics or even philosophy, it's just silly.
Why would you invoke a notion of God only for a God which does not
exist. *That* is silly. In science, when a theory about something is
shown inconsistent or not plausible with the facts, we change the
theory, instead of keeping the same all the time and mocking it.
> to decide what is real or not.
Well, perform one calculation without using matter and the laws of
physics and I'll stop believing in that "God". Just add 2+2, that's
all I ask.
You ask me something totally impossible and totally irrelevant, as we
have explained more than once.
>> you use mechanism every time you decide to scratch your nose.
> No. I scratched my nose a long time before I assumed mechanism.
Of course, mechanism doesn't give a damn if you think it exists or
not, it just keeps doing its thing regardless, and when the nerves
from your brain tell the muscles in your arm to scratch your nose
that is exactly what happens. In cartoons Wile E Coyote can run off
a cliff and he won't start to fall until he realizes he's
unsupported and is supposed to drop, but that's not the way real
physics works.
> Now evolution does not explain consciousness,
Evolution certainly explains why intelligence exists because it
effects behavior, if consciousness wasn't a byproduct of
intelligence and if the Turing Test doesn't work for it then
consciousness wouldn't exist, and yet I know for certain of at least
one instance in which consciousness does exist.
That type of rhetoric has already been debunked. Your 'faking idiot'
style of arguing has already made us laugh once, but repeating it ad
nauseam is not that fun.
To sum up the state on the subject: you confuse:
"matter (primary or not) is needed for humans to compute or build
machines computing for them". Which is correct.
And "primary matter is needed for having the existence of computations
in general". Which is close to nonsensical when we assume digital
mechanism (that is not obvious and is a subproduct of the UD-Argument).
The existence of computations is a theorem in all sigma_1 complete
theory, and so for a TOE we can start (at least) by assuming one such
system, and I use elementary arithmetic for that purpose (formalized
by the theory Q by Raphael Robinson, but which I have called RA).
Then, given that we attribute consciousness to the relevant relative
person canonically ascribed to some computational relations, which are
actually already provable by RA, we explain the appearances of matter
by the necessity of restricting/enlarging the measure by invoking
truth or consistency, (or both), and, surprise, it works, in the sense
of providing a type of quantum logic on which we can hope some future
"Gleason theorem".
You should be able to appreciate or hate the change of paradigm well
before seeing that indeed, betting on computationalism instead of
(weak) materialism, that change of paradigm (in theology and science)
is obligatory (without invoking magic).
Elementary arithmetic entails already, when assuming digital mechanism
in the background, the existence of a universal dreamer which lost
itself and differentiate in *many* diverse experiences, and yet, the
theory, and perhaps some practice, illustrates that it can wake up
(relatively and less relatively), became lucid, recognize itself in
others, and even explore alternate realities/computations.
It is all in our head, but it is all in the head of any universal
(sigma_1 complete) believer.
And the point is not that this is true, but that it is testable.
Maybe a good book for all of you is the book, again cheap and thin,
and which contains the fundamental paper by Tarski, Mostowski and
Robinson: Undecidability and Essential Undecidability in Arithmetic".
The book title is "Undecidable theories", Dover 2010 (North-Holland
1953).
It is the paper (and book) on RA. RA (like PA) is essentially
undecidable, and this means that you can't make it into a decidable
theory by adding axioms or computable scheme of axioms. All its
consistent effective extensions inherits the undecidability feature.
You might need to study some textbook in logic if you are new to the
subject, like Mendelson, Boolos and Jeffrey, Davis, etc.
Thanks to the book of Daniel J. Cohen, I know that the logicians are
the one doing theology seriously since the start, and I understand why
they don't like we remind them this. Of course logic is by itself the
best tool for the doubters and the agnostics, which might be, with
mechanism, the only way to not blaspheme, or to just keep calm in the
search of the possible fundamental principle.
Nobody should talk like if he/she knew the truth. The "isn't" is
mandatory. We have only theories/beliefs, and we can only be
confronted with the facts and happenings when we link theories and
possible realities. We can know *some* truth, but it is better to keep
it in the private sphere. That includes some part of the theologieS
(consistent extensions of machine's theology).
Bruno
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.
