> On 21 Feb 2018, at 00:48, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2/18/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If consciousness is invariant for a digital transplant, it is not much a
>> matter of choice.
> But that's simply assuming what is to be argued.
It is the working hypothesis. The argument is in showing that this enforces
Plato and refutes Aristotle. Physics becomes a branch of machine’s psychology
> The argument must be that the doctor has done this before (maybe to humans,
> maybe to mice) and there was not detectable change in behavior, so it's
> reasonable to bet on the doctor.
The reason why you say “yes” to the doctor is private. It needs an act of faith
because no experience at all can confirm Computationalism.
Due to some possible anosognosia, even doing the digital transplant experience
oneself would prove nothing, even to yourself (despite the feeling). You can
know that you have survived, but you cannot know for sure that you have
survived integrally (but you can know that in the Theoretical sense, slightly
A doctor who claim that we survive such transplant, or that science has proven
we can survive such transplant is automatically a con-man.
>> The physical reality is given by a first person plural reality emerging from
>> complex compromises between truth and all universal numbers. The measure
>> one, on which we hope some day people get the equivalent of Gleason theorem,
>> i.e. the one provided by p & <>t (& p) with p sigma_1, obey(s) indeed
>> quantum logic(s) where expected. Nature confirms indexical comp, and
>> indexical QM (we could rename also, then).
> This is based on Kripke semantics, but I have not understood why its axioms
> do not include that a world is necessarily accessible from itself?
All modal logic which have the axiom k ((p -> q) -> (p -> q)), and is
close for the necessitation rule (p / p) admits a Kripke semantics, and vice
versa. The theory K has only k as axiom. A modal frame respect p -> p if and
only if each worlds is accessible to itself (a frame respect a formula means
that the formula is true in all worlds, for all valuations of the atomic
sentences). But p -> p is not validate in the model with one world, with p
false in that world, and having no accessibility arrow. So p -> p is not
valid in an arbitrary Kripke model, and p -> p is not a theorem of K.
That is nice, because the logic of provability (G) has cul-de-sac world (in
which # is always valid trivially, for any #, and such world do not access to
themselves), and so p -> p is not a theorem, and the relation cannot be
reflexive. That p -> p is not valid in the provability logic is immediate if
you think to the arithmetical interpretation. f -> f, i.e. ~f , i.e. <>t,
i.e. consistency, would be provable, contrary to what the second incompleteness
says. Or show that if we have p -> p (as theorem), you can easily show that
the Löb’s formula ((p -> p) -> p), would entail a contradiction:
f -> f. (Let us assume we can prove that)
(f -> f). (By necessitation)
(f -> f) -> f. (By Löb)
f (modus ponens on second and third lines)
f (modus ponens on first and preceding line)
>> Note that when we interview the universal (Löbian) machine/number, we use
>> only weak computationalism.
> 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 email@example.com.
> 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.