On 05 Sep 2017, at 18:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will
not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine.
Then we use the math of self-reference to study what a digital
machine can prove and not prove about itself, and the 8 different
views are extracted from this. Bp & p gives the classical
Theaetetus standard definition of knowledge, for exemple. Socrates
criticized it, but the incompleteness theorem makes it able to work
in the mechanist context.
If you are only going to reason about an ideal machine, why begin
from replacing one's brain with a digital machine?
You might say that when we say "yes" to the doctor, we hope we are
self-referentially correct, and we were in case it succeeds. Then, at
the substitution level, the G and G* logic applies.
The answer of course is that you really want to identify the
machine's function (which is physical) with conscious thought of
abstractions like numbers and theorems.
No. That follows from mechanism. It makes us into number reflecting on
their possibilities. I just simplify the reasoning by assuming ideal
correctness, to avoid interviewing an "Helsinki" guy who believes that
he is Napoleon ... You can put this in the default hypotheses.
This is a bit of a stretch...but OK. Then you go further and
idealize the abstract machine so that it proves all of RA
Potentially.
and interprets the 8 different logical classes in terms of knowing.
Only Bp & p, and Bp & Dt & p, and somehow perhaps p are related to
knowledge. But OK. You were quick I guess.
This seems to me to already have stretched the connection to human
experience beyond the breaking point.
in UDA I use diaries and duplication to explain that physics has to
emerge from "number dream". It is a reasoning, based on the comp
assumption.
But when it is translated in arithmetic, you have the shows to imagine
human or non human. It is irrelevant. To get the "correct physics" we
limit ourself to correct machine (which exclude perhaps humans, but
that is not relevant from a theoretical standpoint.
But the connection to human experience is the only connection back
to physics.
Why? I don't see that at all.
Yet a physical world seems essential to human experience.
It is. The point is that the physical world is a number experience,
and physics is reduced to number psychology/theology.
Then the human soul can get lost, and forget its nature, and believe
the lies, but that cannot change the "correct physical laws" dreamed
by "winning" computations (those with measure 1 or 1 minus epsilon).
So the argument looks like a reductio to me.
I don't see this, nor am I sure what this means. I think you mix level
of explanation. It is a bit like saying to a quantum physicist "oh,
you know what matter is, so you should be able to give me the recipe
of the salami pizza".
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.
