Hi David,
As we agree on many things, I jump directly where we might either
disagree or improve the understanding.
On 15 Jul 2017, at 16:39, David Nyman wrote:
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, isn'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.
Only the whole sigma_1 truth is available to the machine. The whole
arithmetical truth remains quite beyond the reach of any machine,
which can only scratch on it.
And I am not sure of the "potentially". The universal machine, a
finite being, might be actually conscious, although it is a highly
dissociative state of consciousness, out of time and space. It is a
state of consciousness without duration. People coming back from such
a state are very confused, as they cannot say if it lasted 0 seconds,
or eternity. It is hard to imagine or conceive, and I disbelieved in
its existence for a long time. It eventually forces to identify the 0p
and the 3p outer-god, leading to the enlightenment/blaspheme: God =
sigma-truth, which makes God being us (close to the blaspheme: "I am
God").
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 philosophy and theology, we exchange rigor with political
correctness. We want people having the right to believe what they want
to believe. It is a fake "open-mindness" which shows the lack of
serious interest in the inquiry, I'm afraid.
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).
Hmm... as I said, perception and action are "immediate" type of thing.
The []p -> [][]p formula of S4Grz(1) is an hindrance for this, and it
is better to use []p & <>t (& p). The "<>t" break the transitivity
(allowed by []p -> [][]p), and leads to "immediate probability", which
suits better the "perception" and "measurement" notion. But at this
stage it is almost a detail, especially that we get already a
quantization with S4Grz(1) on the p sigma_1 (computable in the
"provable" terming).
Bruno
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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
