On 21 Dec 2017, at 23:35, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 7:18:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Dec 2017, at 01:41, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC,
[email protected] wrote:
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for
Copenhagen. According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system
measured, which is when the box is opened. What am I missing?
According to Copenhagen Wigner's friend opens
the cat box and that collapses the cat's wave
function, and so Wigner's friend now knows the cat's fate,
but Wigner's friend is also in a box and Wigner
himself is outside that box, so until Wigner opens his friend's
box his friend is in a "I see a dead cat" state AND a "I see a
live cat state". And of course you could put Wigner himself in a
box with somebody outside it and you could keep increasing the
number of nested boxes until the entire universe is included, and
that is why the Copenhagen interpretation is useless if
you're interest is in dealing in cosmology because there is
nobody outside to universe observe it.
And God is of no help unless somebody knows who collapses
God's wave function, and even then there would be another
unanswered question too obvious to mention.
And with Digital Mechanism, even a Universe cannot help. How could
*anything* select a computation, or a class of computations, among
all computations?
But the first person associated to the universal numbers, involved
in the semi-computable relations, localized themselves in the
relative way allowed by the local self-referential correctness,
apparently.
Gödel's arithmetization of metamathematics embed the
mathematicians in the arithmetical reality/truth/model (the
structure (N, 0, +, x).
Remarkably, incompleteness justfies the equivalence, at the truth
level, of all modes p, Bp, Bp & p, etc. , and the fact that the
machine cannot justify those equivalences, and that they obey
quite different logics.
Kant can be tested, by looking for time, space and the quantum "in
the head" of the universal machine. Apparently he is right.
Bruno
Translation: CMIIAW: Mumbo Jumbo OR There is a God. His name is
Plato. He knows arithmetic. (Since he learned it from his father,
we have an infinite regression of turtles within turtles.) AG
Alternatively, you're putting WILL at the core of creation
manifested by a Mathematician. AG
Not at all. I assume (besides the Mechanist hypothesis) only very
elementary arithmetic:
That is classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x) (= 0 is not the successor of a number)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y (different numbers have different
successors)
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) (except for 0, all numbers have a
predecessor)
x+0 = x (if you add zero to a number, you get
that number)
x+s(y) = s(x+y) (if you add a number x to the successor of a
number y, you get the successor of x added to y)
x*0=0 (if you multiply a number by 0, you get 0)
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x (if you multiply a number x by the successor of
y, you get the number x added to the multiplication of the number x
with y)
I do not assume anything more than this.
You sound like a Platonist who believes that a "world of ideas"
exists that LOGICALLY PRECEDES what most regard as the physical
world,
Yes, but eventually it is limited to a tiny part of math. And yes, I
tend to believe more in 2+2=4 than in F=GmM/r^2.
with the addition of what you call computationalism, presumably
something immaterial that can do calculations, and/or is in some
sense conscious. Those are HUGE ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTI0NS.
You might need to study my papers. You might also study computer
science. The notion of computation has been discovered by
mathematician, working on the foundations of mathematics (Gödel,
Post, Kleene, Turing, Church, ...). Do not confuse the arithmetical
notion of universal machine with the physical implementations of
universal machine (like brain, computer, cells, ...).
I've worked with the computer operating system on the Galileo
spacecraft which orbited Jupiter, a very complex system, but I have
no idea what you mean by "computation". How do you distinguish
computation from what I am familiar with? AG
I use computation in the original sense of Turing, also found by Post,
Church, ...
I am not entirely sure that "operating system" will help, because an
operating system is to a universal machine what a bureaucratic
environment, if not a straitjacked, is for a human.
But I understand the importance of being strait with little robots
when we send them in space, it is like with the little kids.
Congratulation for working on such beautiful project.
Now, do you know what a universal programming language is? I guess so.
It is a language in which you can explain how to compute, in a finite
number of step, a computable function.
Do you know what is an interpreter for a programming language? It is a
universal program capable of understanding a universal programming
language.
Later, and also before, there has been "universal program languages",
or "universal digital machine notions", defined, purely
mathematically. It has also been discovered (the big work was already
in Gödel 1931) that elementary arithmetic *is* such a universal
programming system.
The computation, with respect to the choice of the universal system,
is the sequence of elementary steps the universal machine will do when
interpreting the universal language.
Then it can be shown that all universal system can mimic all universal
system. They are not just able to compute the same class of computable
functions from N to N, or similar, but they can mimic the manner the
computations are done, and they can mimic themselves. The game of life
invented by Conway has ben proved to be Turing universal, and here are
two videos which illustrates a little bit:
A universal system (Register machine) and its Conway-Life emulation
appear at 2:26 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE&t=260s
(careful, after 3:57, it is a variant of Game-of-Life).
Can't resist to invite you to contemplate and understand in some non
trivial sense a universal can simulate itself.
Here, a computation is a sequence of pattern following the laws of the
game of life (explained at the beginning of the first video).
Now, it is not obvious, but the elementary arithmetical reality is
itself a universal machinery, and its the truth emulate all
computations (on all oracles, even, so it is more general, but I don't
want enter in the jargon).
I assume only that the brain is Turing emulable, which is not much
as we don't have any evidence that there is something in nature
which is not Turing emulable, except for the controversial wave
packet reduction.
What does Turing emulable mean? AG
It means "being able to be imitated by a Turing machine". All known
laws of physics lead to computable solutions, although the use of real
numbers complexifies a bit the notion.
Mathematically, we can show the existence of non Turing emulable
relations, and it should be noted that most attributes of the
universal machine itself are NOT computable. Universality leads to
semi-computability, and the universal machine is typically not
predictible on the middle run.
Then the math shows that they have a testable "neo-platonic"-like
theology (testable by its including of physics). It (retro)-predicts
"many-histories", and its quantum logic.
Then, I show, by a reasoning, that Mechanism makes Primary Matter
not able to justify our first person impression with the observable,
and that reasoning shows that we cannot eventually assume more than
RA, for the ontology. Then PA or ZF are enough for the epistemology
and the physics, but we look only to its internal mimic in Q (RA).
What is Mechanism, RA, PA? ZF = Zermelo-Franko? AG
Mechanism is Descartes idea that the brain is a ntural machine. here
we use "digital mechanism", which is Descartes made mathematically
precise than to Turing, Post, Kleene, Gödel, ...
Also, you make the claim that from this you can derive or infer QM.
Sounds like the case of a monkey at a typewriter, which, when given
sufficient time, can type out Hamlet, or better yet a numerical
representation of Beethoven's 9th Symphony.
No. Quite the contrary. It makes physics unique and unavoidable for
all universal machine in arithmetic. You might confuse "mechanism"
in cognitive science, and "digital physicalism": the idea that the
physical reality is the output of a program. Even if that is the
case, that unique program (unique up to renaming in arithmetic) must
be justified by the statistic on all computations and self-reference.
I give you credit for the guts to tackle the mind-body problem, but
I never found Plato's theory of knowledge persuasive.
Nor me. But the universal machine explains why it has to be counter-
intuitive.
What is the universal machine?
The discovery of Alan Turing. A program which "undersatnd" all
programs of a universal programming language. An interpreter.
The programs are enumerable P_0, P_1, P_2, P_3, ...
Relatively to such enumeration, P_u is a universal program, or u is a
universal number when P_u(x,y) = P_x(y). If you want, P_u is the
computer/interpreter, x is the program, and y is the data, and P_x(y).
We say that u emulates x on the input y.
If arithmetic is rooted, as I believe, in empirical observations,
Human arithmetic is certainly rooted in empirical observation, but the
physical theories assumes elementary arithmetic, in general, as
theories, or physics becomes circular. You would need to define 2 is
term of relative observer when used in E = mc^2. "-Sorry Einstein, but
your theory relies on a non defined too much naive concept, the number
2, that's metaphysics, not physics. Failed". That sounds stupid,
many critics of my work are of that type. They introduce metaphysical
assumption to avoid a logical consequence. It is like creationism
invalid use of God against evolution theory. To make a ontological
commitment to hide a conceptual difficulty. And the collapse is a bit
a similar error.
Empirical observation are important to guess the right metaphysics,
but there is no direct evidence for any ontological commitment. My
work gives a way to test materialism or mechanism, and from what we
know today, the evidences side on mechanism, against materialism. The
match is not over!
how could a universal machine exist in some Platonic realm of Ideas?
The concepts are contradictory. AG
If you have the ability to understand the proof of the existence of
the prime number in elementary arithmetic, then you have the ability
to understand the arithmetical definition of the "Turing universal
machine" and the proof of its existence, and of all computations, also.
It needs a tedious work, with some subtle difficulties. But Gödel saw
the difficulties, and solved them all. It is the bomb of the 20th
century.
Later, Kleene discovered what he has called "Church's thesis", also
attributed to Turing, which makes incompleteness becoming an "easy"
exercize (for those who know the diagonalization technic).
A good readable introduction is Cutland's book "Computability". (There
are many others).
The universal machine does not exist in a platonic sense, I mean no
more than the prime numbers exist in a platonic sense. It exist in the
sense of theorems following your agreement that either 4 + 5 is equal
to 1000 or 4 + 5 is not equal to 1000. Metaphysics is for later.
Bruno
Also, it could very well be the case that our concept of arithmetic
is Darwinian based; namely, that it originates from the primitive
observation of self and other, or one and many; that is,
empirically based. AG
Our concept of arithmetic is very plausibly Darwinian based, but
Darwin, to make sense needs the DNA, and the numbers (and even
Digital Mechanism, as confirmed by the DNA RNA protein cycle with or
without its many exceptions, like always with life and universal
machineries)
Then everybody agree on numbers, but on consciousness, or even
Darwin, the debate is harder. I prefer to assume only things where
everybody agree (besides mechanism, which is one of the older human
metaphysics, probably older than materialism).
I don't claim any truth. I proved that Mechanism is constructively
(testably) incompatible with Materialism (in their weakest sense).
Then the tests are in favor of mechanism, up to now.
Bruno
I do not see what I could have said making you believe that I
assume some WILL at the core of the creation. With
computationalism, a will can be ascribed to a machine/number,
relatively to universal machine/numbers and their computations,
which provably exist in the theory above.
It is the physicalist who do the speculation on a primary universe,
without any evidence for it. So people knock on the table, and take
that as an evidence, but this was already refuted by the antic
philosophers with the dream argument. No experience, nor
experiments can lead to an ontology, except for the personal
consciousness. Physics is not metaphysics, unless you assume
Aristotle theology, i.e. you assume a PRIMARY physical universe,
that is, if you assume physicalism at the start. But then you need
to abandon the idea that a brain is Turing emulable. personally, I
don't know, but I study the logical consequence of mechanism, and
it predicts that all machine must find quantum physics in their
head, and this has been partially tested and verified. It is all we
can say.
Bruno
--
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.
