On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 3:07:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2018, at 21:41, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 7:44:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 2018, at 19:32, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I should add that in parallel to mathematical logic and computability
>> theory and even type theory there is the somewhat more practical subject of
>> programming language theory (*PLT*).
>>
>> Any entry point is OK.
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=progamming+language+theory+books
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory
>>
>>
>> Some concepts from PLT (continuations, reflective monads, ...) can go
>> back into mathematica logic.
>>
>>
>>
>> No problem with this. I guess you appreciate topos theory and
>> intutionistic logic, but as I said to Bruce, machine’s theology, even
>> without oracle (but even more with oracle) is necessarily non constructive.
>> I am aware that some people, like the French logicians Jean-Yves Girard,
>> or Jean-Louis Krivine tried to extend the Curry-Howard isomorphism to
>> classical logic. If they succeed, PLT might have application in theology,
>> but a lot of works would have to be done before.
>>
>> If you follow the combinators thread, at some point I might talk about
>> typed combinators and constructive logics, but mainly to point out how much
>> non constructive theoretical computer needs to be.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The debate of arithmetical realism (arithmeticalism) vs. material realism
> (materialism) is a continuation of the older immaterialism vs. materialism
> type debates: It will just evolve.
>
> For materialists, arithmetic is genre of fiction - a useful one. Why does
> math describe what matter does? *Because matter has a programmatic nature*.
>
>
>
> And a non programmatic aspect to, at least phenomenologically, like the
> quantum indeterminacy confirmed. It has to ben due to the fact that a
> universal machine is emulate by infinities of programs in arithmetic.
>
>
>
>
> But matter includes both informationality and experientiality,
>
>
> Why? Primary matter is the devoid of structure, if not it is hardly
> conceivable as being primary.
>
>
>
>
> the latter seemingly missing from arithmetic.
>
>
> Not at all. Arithmetic contains all possible self-reflecting machines (and
> other entities) which all have the same fundamental theology, which
> contains a theory of soul, knowledge and consciousness. The only problem is
> that such a theory does not allowed magical identity link between a mind
> and a piece of matter. A piece of matter is a view from inside arithmetic
> on infinitely many computations. That is already deducible from the first
> seven steps of the argument presented in the SANE papers.
>
>
>
>
>
> From "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" there could be an
> approach for how experientiality could come from arithmetic.
>
>
> Yes indeed.
>
>
>
>
> It could be interesting for PLT research (where modal logics are also
> used).
>
>
>
> That is the crux of the matter. Before I though that the ontology could be
> any extension of arithmetic. Since then I know that we cannot ad an
> infinity axiom, like set theory, still less use the whole of Mathematics,
> like Tegmark did at the beginning (but he has corrected this since, but is
> stilll missing the FPI and the whole theology of numbers). What is nice for
> philosophers, is that Mechanism pick up precise modal logics imposed to
> incompleteness. That is nice, because there are *many* modal logics (and
> weak logics) possible/ Mechanism, simply thanks to computer science, put a
> lot of structure in the internal view of arithmetic possible for universal
> machine, including the separation of what is shamble (quanta) and what is
> not sharable (qualia).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
On the programmatic nature of the quantum substrate, if one allows for *real
randomness and retrodependency*
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/retrosignaling-in-the-quantum-substrate/
then quantum programming is just another programming.
(It is a strange superstition that physicists have to be allergic to
randomness and retrodependency.)
But programs live in the material world in the following sense: *A
simulation is not a synthesis.*
If I have a synbio (synthetic biology) program for a life form that could
attack a disease, if it is just transformed into a simulation that runs in
a MacBook, it me does no good. But it could via a biocompiler/assembler be
transformed to an object that "runs" inside me.
- pt
--
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.
