On 15 July 2017 at 15:11, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2017, at 14:20, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>>> I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be >>>> conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. >>>> Even more so if the consciousness is a product of evolution in that world. >>>> Evolution cannot produce anything that contradicts the laws of physics. >>>> >>> >>> One way to see that consciousness and physics are not tightly >>> constrained is to note that our consciousness seems adapted to living on a >>> flat Earth in which Newtonian mechanics prevails. The "laws of physics", >>> as we've presently congratulated ourselves on inventing, are so far from >>> intuitive that there are endless arguments over how to interpret them. >>> >> >> John Clark misses this by stopping at UDA step 3 (not included), and >> Bruce seems to stop at step 4 (not included). >> > > Which particular 'this' do you have in mind here? The interpretation of > the "laws of physics"? > > > By "this" I meant that consciousness and physics are tightly constrained. >
Ah, we agree then. > Consciousness, including the observable (Physics) is made into a branch of > machine arithmetical self-reference. > > We, the universal machines, are distributed in an infinity of > (arithmetical) computations below our substitution level on which our First > Person experience is undetermined, and the laws to predict the observable > must be given by a statistic on all computations, or it needs to invoke > some metaphysical entity, be it Matter or God, doing a magical (non Turing > emulable nor FPI recoverable) selection. That entails a "many computations" > view of reality, and the quantum logical aspect of Nature is intuitively > explained already. > >> Now, why negative amplitude of probability? > > > Not sure I follow. Negative amplitude of probability > is found in > harmonical functions, > is > n't it? > > > Negative amplitude appears in all wave theory, but only in quantum > mechanics do they have an interpretation in term of amplitude of > probability. The whole "mystery" of quantum mechanics is there. > > I was alluding to the rather normal critics asserting that, a priori, in > the UDA, or in classical probability theory, the probabilities on the next > computational continuations are purely additive. There is no clue why the > probabilities could be attached to some which undulate. > Yes, now I see what you meant. > > But that critics makes a mistake. The probabilities are not on the 3p > computations, but on the 1p experiences brought by those computations. > A most crucial difference. > So, to have the logic obeyed by those probabilities, we have to use a > precise mathematical definition of "first person". This one is "offered" by > the incompleteness theorem which makes sense of Theaetetus definition (in > three different ways, giving three physical realms). > Yes, and it puts into perspective the idea that the incompleteness theorems might have been trivial in the sense that they are applicable only to a small set of self-referential propositions. This is a criticism I have encountered. > Those notions of first person makes the antic dream argument valid, > And thus reverses the apparent direction of explanation, at least at the start, in a way that unfortunately seems to infuriate some people. > explains entirely consciousness (if we agree to characterize it by the > "non rationally justifiable yet undoubtable truth), associates an > intuitionist subject to the knower, and, the main thing here, a quantum > logic (and thus plausible negative amplitude of probability) for the > observable. > Yes, I see. > > >> This remains counter-intuitive, but is explained by the fact that the >> statistic are not on the 3p representational bodies in arithmetic, but on >> the 1p views, which necessitate to be defined by machine-self-reference. In >> that case, the non intuitive matter features are recovered by the >> nonintuitive logic of self-reference and its 1p variants, and indeed, we >> get a quantum logic which makes us expect a unique measure. It obeys, up to >> now at least, everything needed to have those negative probability >> amplitudes, as required. >> It is true that we can implement consciousness in a classical machine >> (assuming the substitution level enough high) but from its first person >> perspective, that machine will still experience the indeterminacy >> probabilities on all "classical and non classical" implementations in >> arithmetic. >> > >> People are stuck on the brain-mind identity brain link, which is not >> available when we assume >> Mechanism. >> > The first person is always associated with an infinity of implementations. >> We have to take into account the 1p/3p distinction. If a machine discovers >> that it run in a classical physical setting, the machine we interrogate >> will act like she knows that she belongs to a simulation or that >> computationalism is false. >> >> I understand that this is shocking, but normally, in this list, people >> should be used to it, because they accept Everett and the "everything" idea >> which should help them to be prepared for that admittedly unpleasant >> self-differentiation/self-multiplication. That is why I explain >> mechanism here, as people know already the work of Everett, and from a >> physicists standpoint, Mechanism generalizes its embedding of the subject's >> body in subject's matter of the theory, something already begun in >> arithmetic by Gödel, Kleene, Post, etc. >> > > Not only that, at first blush it looks as if it reverses entirely the > explanatory priority from mechanism-->mind to mind-->mechanism. But perhaps > in fact it creates a symmetry between the two modes of explanation. > > > To get the full symmetry, I think we need to accept the idea that all > "virgin" universal machine are "maximally conscious". > Or potentially so, in that the whole of arithmetical truth is equally available to them all in principle. > In that case, the "cosmic consciousness" (as some call it) is the > consciousness of the universal person (attached to the universal machine) > and the arithmetical truth (which can be limited to the sigma_1 > arithmetical truth when we interview the computationalist universal > machine). > > What I mean is that if we were to simply accept mechanism on its own > terms, without extrapolating to mind, then we would have an 'explanation' > entirely in itself, or rather a machine that proceeds of itself without > further need of explanation. > > > But Mechanism is defined with the notion of consciousness. It is the > belief that "I" remain conscious through a digital brain transplant. > > For example, if we conceive physics as such a mechanism, the physical > machine proceeds from state to state without the need of invoking mind, or > for that matter worlds, creatures, biological evolution, or all the other > mentalistic paraphernalia. On the other hand, should we be 'minded' to > accept mind on its own terms, we are at once at a loss for a mechanism for > the phenomena that undoubtedly appear within its observational spectra. As > a slogan, we might assert that (from an explanatory perspective) mechanism > has no need for a mind, but mind is in dire need of a mechanism. This, if > you like, supplies a rationale for why we look for such a mechanism and > feel justified in deploying observational self-selection as the filter on > the generalised mechanistic base. Having done so, we find ourselves left > with the explanatory or implicative symmetry mind<-->mechanism. > > > OK. You were using "mechanism" in the pure 3p sense (not in the Digital > Mechanism theological act of faith of a candidate for classical > teleportation). > Yes. I think my slogan should actually make people stop a moment and question the implicit assumptions they are surreptitiously adding to their effective theories. However, they rarely do. > In that case, we need only arithmetic and Church's thesis. With Church's > thesis, it is a theorem already of Peano Arithmetic that all computations > are executed by the arithmetical reality. But to associate consciousness > and 1p experience (and not just the 3p account of those experiences) we > need the theological assumption, and then we get the mean to explain the > illusion of physical laws and why they can last for "long period". > > The mechanism for mind is the conjunction of the representational beliefs > (well captured by the beweisbar box) and the semantics or truth, not > capturable at all by the machine (except at the metalevel by doing the > explicit mechanist hypothesis). > Which less formally we might characterise as action and perception (or intuition, if you prefer). David > This explains the sound feeling that consciousness is not explainable in > any 3p way (which is correct), yet lived by the machine (if defined or > characterized by undoubtable and non "scientifically" communicable). The > machine can explain why they have to be at lost when relating their > consciousness and any 3p account of it: that simply does not exist. But the > price is high, because to solve the mind body problem with this explanation > of the mind, the entire physics must be a theorem of (meta)arithmetic, as I > hope one of S4Grz1, X1* and Z1* will show (and seem to promise to show). > > Bruno > > > > > David > > >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> 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.
