> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:11, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 11:20:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 28 Sep 2018, at 13:02, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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] <>> 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://www.google.com/search?q=progamming+language+theory+books> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory >>>> <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/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/> >> >> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/retrosignaling-in-the-quantum-substrate/ >> >> <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. > > ? > > Programs, Turing machine, combinators, have been discovered purely > mathematically, and shown to exist already in all models of any theory of > arithmetic, or in any model of any Turing complete theory. > > (I use “model” in the logician sense, it means mainly an interpretation of a > theory). > > Bruno > > > > > My claim: Synthetic biology changes the definition of "program”.
If that is true, it would be a rather bad news for synthetic biology. Program/machine is the most solid mathematical epistemic notion, because it has that “miraculous” Church’s thesis. This lacks for provability, definability, representability, etc. So, I doubt very much that synthetic biology needs to change the notion of program. You might explain why you think so. You might explain what is synthetic biology too. Bruno > > > > >> >> 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 [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.
