On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:18:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Dec 2018, at 12:54, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:09:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Dec 2018, at 12:58, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:41:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 12:11, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Nothing is "confirmed" and "made precise". >>> >>> (Derrida, Rorty, …) >>> >>> >>> That would make Derrida and Rorty into obscurantism. Confirmation does >>> not make an idea true, but it is better than nothing, once we postulate >>> some reality. >>> >>> Some “philosophies” prevents the scientific attitude, like some >>> “religions” do, although only when they are used for that purpose. Some >>> philosophies vindicate their lack of rigour into a principle. That leads >>> to relativisme, and obscurantism. It looks nice as anyone can defend any >>> idea, but eventually it hurts in front of the truth. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >> Have you read some of the Opinions* or watched some of the (youtube) >> lectures of Rutgers math professor Doron Zeilberger? >> >> I've been following him like forever. >> >> * e.g. >> >> - *Mathematics is so useful because physical scientists and engineers >> have the good sense to largely ignore the "religious" fanaticism of >> professional mathematicians, and their insistence on so-called rigor, >> that >> in many cases is misplaced and hypocritical, since it is based on >> "axioms" >> that are completely fictional, i.e. those that involve the so-called >> infinity.* >> >> Mechanism proves this. Arithmetic, without infinity axiom, even without >> the induction axiom, is the “ontological things”. Induction axioms, >> infinity, physics, humans, etc. belongs to the phenomenology. The >> phenomenology is not less real, but its is not primary, it is second order, >> and that fiction is needed to survive, even if fictionally. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > To experiential realists, phenomenal consciousness is a real thing. > > > That is what the soul of the machine ([]p & p) says to itself (1p) > correctly. It is real indeed. But it is non definable, and non provable. > The machine’s soul knows that her soul is not a machine, nor even anything > describable in any 3p terms. > > > > > > > To real (experiential) materialists (panpsychism), consciousness is > intrinsic to matter (like electric charge, etc.). So that would make > consciousness primary. > > > Then you better need to say “no” to the doctor who propose you a digital > body. > > But are you OK that your daughter marry a man who got one such digital > body in his childhood, to survive some disease? > > You might say yes, and invoke the fact that he is material. The point will > be that if he survives through a *digital* substitution, it can be shown > that no universal machine at all is unable to distinguish, without > observable clue, a physical reality from any of infinitely many emulation > of approximations of that physical reality at some level of substitution > (fine grained, with 10^100 decimals correct, for example). Then, infinitely > many such approximation exists in arithmetic, even in diophantine > polynomial equation, and the invariance of the first person for “delays of > reconstitution” (definable by the number of steps done by the universal > dovetailer to get the relevant states) entails that the 1p is confronted > with a continuum. The math shows that it has to be a special (models of []p > & p, and []p & <>t & p. [] is the arithmetical “beweisbar” predicate of > provability of Gödel 1931. It is my generic Gödel-Löbian machine, shortly: > Löbian. They obeys to the formula of modesty of Löb: []([]p -> p) -> []p. > It represents a scheme of theorems of PA saying that PA is close for the > Löb rule: if you convince PA that the provability of the existence of Santa > Klauss entails the existence of Santa Klauss, then PA will soon or later > prove the existence of Santa Klauss. Put in another way, unless PA proves > something, she will never prove that the provability of something entails > that something. PA is maximally modest on her own provability ability. > > In particular, with f the constant proposition false, consistency, the > ~[]f, equivalent with []f -> f, is not provable, so []p -> p is in general > not provable and is not a theorem of PA. > > Incompleteness enforces the nuances between > > Truth p > Provable []p > Knowable []p & p > Observable []p & <>t. (t = propositional constant true, <> = ~[]~ = > consistent) > Sensible []p & <>t > > And incompleteness also doubles, or split, the provable, the observable > and the sensible along the provable/true parts, G and G*. > That gives 8 personal points of view on the (sigma_1) Arithmetic. 5 > “terrestrial” (provable) and 5 “divine” (true but non provable) modes on > the Self, with two of them (Truth and Knowable) at the intersection of > Earth (effective, provable) and Heaven (truth). > > The beauty is that G* proves p <-> []p <-> []p&p <-> []p&<>t <-> > []p&<>t&p, but G proves virtually none. (p sigma_1). In this setting p -> > []p is equivalent with sigma_1 completeness, or Turing universality, and > the Löbian entities typically can prove all p -> []p formula. But the > consistent machine cannot prove []p -> p in general. That is why the logic > and the mathematics of all the nuances differ a lot from the machine's > local point of view, despite they true equivalence. > > Bruno > > > > > https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ > > - pt > >
As for a new digital body, I could likely accept it if it were a *hybrid digital/biological body* (e.g. the biopolymers being used to make synthetic neurons today). That is the future of biocomputing technology. - and it may be for pragmatic (power consumption) as well as scientific reasons for doing so. As for its "machinery", its informational semantics (as you have defined above) may be that of a higher-order theorem prover: *Automating Gödel'’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence ¨ with Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers* http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf (One can prove it has a "soul"?) But such a (hybrid) body would have an informational (physical) and an experiential semantics. - 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.
