> On 10 Mar 2018, at 22:11, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/10/2018 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 8 Mar 2018, at 17:10, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Mar 2018, at 15:24, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 3/5/2018 11:49 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 3/5/2018 9:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Could" implies a question about possibilities.  It's certainly logically
>>>>>> possible that there not be such a disease as leukemia.  Is it 
>>>>>> nomologically
>>>>>> possible?...not as far as we know.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well I'm not sure it's logically possible, for the reasons that Bruno
>>>>>> already addressed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bruno is assuming that everything not contrary to his theory exists
>>>>>> axiomatically...which is assuming the answer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is a rather uncharitable way of putting it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bruno has discussed his Universal Dovetailer Argument extensively. If
>>>>>> you assume comp and accept the argument, then we are inside of the
>>>>>> dovetailer. The dovetailer is an everything-generator.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's exactly the problem with everythingism.  It predicts all the 
>>>>>> stuff we
>>>>>> don't see.
>>>>> Bruno, Russell, Tegmark and others tend to concern themselves a lot
>>>>> with why our experience of reality looks like it does on the face of
>>>>> everythingism. That is precisely the "hard part", no?
>>>> It is the hard part of the matter problem, when we understand that with 
>>>> mechanism, the everything is no more that the sigma_1 arithmetical 
>>>> reality, which I think everyone believe in, except the ultra-intuitionist.
>>>> 
>>>> Brent seemed to have understood this once, but seems to forget it recently 
>>>> apparently.
>>>> 
>>>> If someone believe in a primal physical universe *and* in the survive of 
>>>> consciousness through the digital transformation, it is up to them to 
>>>> explain how the primal universe (and what is it?) acts on arithmetic for 
>>>> making some computations seems more real than others.
>>>> 
>>>> I claim nothing, except that mechanism and materialism are incompatible, 
>>>> and that the mind-body problem is reduced into deriving physics from the 
>>>> “material” variants of machine’s ideal rational 
>>>> believability/justifiability. And then it works at the propositional 
>>>> level, so we can say that today, we have not yet detected any evidence for 
>>>> a primal universe through our observation of nature.
>>>> 
>>>> Let us encourage the pursue of the testing, simply.
>>> Bruno, can you expand a bit? If you had a big grant to pursue this
>>> research programme, what would you do?
>> 
>> I would hire mathematicians to continue the extraction of physics, which in 
>> this case would mean to optimise the theorem provers for the machine’s 
>> quantum logic (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) and compare them to the quantum logics of 
>> nature (where some research do exist already, but that needs to make 
>> progress too).
>> Now, we have three quantum logics, and all three have more theorems than the 
>> physical-empirical quantum logics, as they have the Löbian constraints, and 
>> so, some quantum tautologies are original and we have to test them. Then we 
>> have to isolate the tensor product, without postulating a linear logic 
>> superimposed to the quantum logic (that would work, but to exploit the G/G* 
>> difference, we have no other choice than to derive the “linear and” from the 
>> machine-quantum physicalness, where some tools from knot theory (and its 
>> relation with quantum statistics) might be available if some relation 
>> between the quantisation ([]<>A, with the box and diamond of Z1*, S4Grz1, 
>> X1*) are verified, which is still open.
>> 
>> My work has only open the door on a non Aristotelian way to conceive 
>> rationally the observation, but now, this asks for continual verification 
>> until we find a discrepancy, and in that case we learn that Mechanism is 
>> false, or we continue with the simple mechanist theory, as it explains both 
>> quanta and qualia, with consistent relation in between.
>> 
>> Many important question remains: is the Hamiltonian purely physical 
>> (derivable in arithmetic/theology) or geographical, in which case the 
>> multiverse allows for a continuum of Hamitonians, etc.
>> 
>> Telmo, what could Galilee or Newton have answered to a similar question? In 
>> fact all physical facts must be explained by the theology of numbers. If it 
>> miss Dark Matter or GR or anything, such things can be 
>> geographical/contingent, but if it contradicts them, then such thing becomes 
>> evidence that mechanism is false (or that we are in a second order 
>> simulation à la Bostrom).
>> 
>> My initial goal was just in using Digital Mechanism to reduce the mind-body 
>> problem to the problem of deriving physics from Number (theology).
>> I did not expect to derive already 3 propositional physics. Now we have to 
>> derive the first order physics, and continue the comparison with Nature.
> 
> But you keep claiming you have derived quantum mechanics...which implies, at 
> a minimum, linear evolution of rays in complex Hilbert space and the Born 
> rule.   I don't see it.

I claim only having got the quantum logical formalism. Using some technic by 
Herbrand I could formally (and have done in part) extract a linear algebra 
describing projectors, making Kripke models into yes-no experiments to test 
quantum tautologies (and wrote simulators for that: and it fits an 
orthodomodular quantum lattice, which is complete extension in the first order 
domain. Keep in mind the advantage: we get the quanta/qualia distinction in a 
coherent way.

It is just a lot of work for the future generation.The point is that this has 
to be done.
Looking at the universe, inferring laws, and claiming that this is the 
explanation is just not satisfying for me, or any computationalist. There is a 
no pure logical explanation, but there is already a logical arithmetical 
explanation, and testable (and “tested” retroactively).

You might not have integrated the unavoidability of all computations in 
arithmetic. It is the sigma_1 arithmetical reality. Once you have all formula 
of the type ExP(x,y) true (with P decidable, or even much more rudimentary), 
you have the complete semi-computable part of Arithmetic. And we are related to 
infinitely many relative self-representations, we the abstract person 
benefiting from stable enough computations to control ourself partially 
relatively to our most probable histories.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to