On 07 Jul 2017, at 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/07/2017 12:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jul 2017, at 14:22, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/07/2017 5:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
And assuming conscious classic digital machines, quantum
phenomenology
appears at the observed level - a result in line with Bruno
Marchal's
FPI result.
Prove it. Bruno has failed to do so -- his person duplication
thought experiments do not reproduce quantum behaviour.
Which one? Z1*, X1*, or S4Grz1? If you know about a physical facts
contradicting those theories, I would be pleased to know. The
person duplication experience just shows that physics is given by a
"sum" on all computations, seen from internal points of view
imposed by incompleteness, and until now, as modest as the results
can be, the three propositional physics are still not refuted. I am
not sure you have studied them, because you have shown not knowing
the basic theories needed to apprehend them, so it looks you are
just inventing something here.
The point that I was trying to make to Russell was that since purely
classical machines can exhibit consciousness means that you cannot
derive quantum mechanics from consciousness alone.
That depends on your assumptions. If my consciousness, or my 1p
experience are invariant for a physical digital substitution, in
virtue of computing, then there is just no choice in the matter.
Physics (the science of observable prediction) has to be retrieved
from arithmetical self-reference. Precisely, the logic of "measure
one" (the yes-no experiments) must be retrieved from two things:
1) the modal arithmetical nuances (brought by incompleteness) of
Gödel's arithmetical provability predicate ([]p): precisely either []p
& p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & p. (by the UDA reasoning).
2) the restriction of the arithmetical realization to the sigma_1
sentence.(by the UD itself).
And neither does the fact that you might have found a couple of
objects that do not commute mean that you have derived QM.
I found more than that (a quantum logic) but the points is that this
is found at the place where UDA justifies that we must find the logic
of the observable.
Else the person who first noted that rotations in 3 dimensions do
not commute could be said to have discovered QM!
Which would be ridiculous indeed, but has nothing to do with what I
have explained we need to do to solve the mind-body problem, or more
generally the 1p/3p relation problem.
If you want to save both Digital Mechanism (in cognitive science, not
in physics) and physicalism, you need to explain what a physical
universe is, and how it can select some subset of the set of all
computations emulated in (a tiny part) of Arithmetic (the model, not
any theory). If not, the physicalist misuse the (metaphysical) noyion
of physical universe in the same manner a creationist use God to
criticize Evolution.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
