On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > [snip] > > * So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT > occur in the future, * > > The arithmetical relations do that. Consciousness only select the histories > > * and creates those worlds in anticipation? Now we're really > getting deep into woo-woo territory.* > > On the contrary, we explain how the quantum physical illusion arise from > all computations which are already realised in the block-mindspace given by > very elementary arithmetic, that we never leave. > > Here are all my assumptions: classical logic + the axioms of arithmetic > (“s” is intended to denote the successor function x+1): > > * Please describe ambiguous (for me) symbols, AG* > > > OK. > > > > > 0 ≠ s(x) OK > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y OK > x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) ? > > > A natural number is either null, or has a predecessor. Read “Ex” by it > exists a number x such that ... > > > > > x+0 = x OK > x+s(y) = s(x+y) OK > x*0=0 ? *Does * mean multiplication? AG* > > > Yes. “x” looks to much like the variable x. > > > > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x ? > > > x multiplied by the successor of y gives the same as x * y + x. Exemple 6 > * 4 = (6 * 3) + 6. > > > I use mechanism only to help people that this has to be a theory of > everything. It explains very well consciousness (I think), and matter (as > confirmed up to now). > > *What is the first step from these postulates, to anything? I mean > anything. What is mechanism? * > > > Mechanism is the hypothesis that our body is a machine, or a natural > machine-like entity. (It has been discussed in the antic China, India and > greek philosopher/theologians. But you need to wait Descartes and Diderot > to see it coming back, but, notably with Diderot, also its use by > materialists to hide the mind-body problem. > > Digital Mechanism as I use it in this list, is slightly more precise. The > notion of digital machine is the notion of Emil Post, Alonzo Church, Alan > Turing, and best explained by Stephen Kleene in his papers and book, > notably his “Introduction to Metamathematics” (1952). > Just ask me, and I gave more on this … after the June exams, as my > scheduling get tighter and tighter those days. > > *Why do we need these postulate to fix anything? * > > > My goal was to reformulate the mind-body problem in the frame of the > Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science/philosophy-o-mind/theology. > Unfortunately I have been asked to solve it, which I did, but that > requires some familiarity with Mathematical Logic, which is not well taught. > Also, the solution is disliked by the “religious” materialists, and I have > underestimate the number of those in some academical circles, and their > influence (I got a price for my PhD which has disappears without > explanation, just to give one example …). >
*What happened with your Ph'D? Are you associated with a university? Which one? Just curious. AG * > *What is the problem you're trying to fix? * > > > The mind-body problem. How a grey brain can create a color perception, for > example. > *Unsolved IMO, Not a trivial problem. AG * > But it is more deep than that, as eventually, Mechanism is shown > incompatible with materialism and/or physicalism, which is the actual > paradigm in most metaphysics and theologies. > *What is Materialism? If Mechanism is as you defined above -- that the body is a machine or like a machine -- why is it incompatible with materialism? AG* > *How can these postulates explain consciousness? TIA, AG* > > > Eventually by the logics of self-reference discovered by Gödel and Löb in > arithmetic, and axiomatised completely (at the propositional level) by > Solovay. > > If you agree that for a conscious being, consciousness is true, non > doubtable, but also non provable and non definable, then it is long but not > difficult to show that all universal machine (in the sense of Church …) can > introspect itself (in the sense provided by Gödel), and discover some thing > obeying to those axiomatic description of consciousness. 99% of > consciousness is explained, + an explanation why the last 1% has to be felt > by the machine as utterly not explainable. > *Introspection -- the great unsolved problem. I have difficulty giving you the benefit of the doubt if you believe in a silly theory such as the MWI. AG * > > More on this later, perhaps. > > 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.
