> On 6 Jan 2019, at 22:03, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/6/2019 3:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 5 Jan 2019, at 22:18, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>>>> As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the 
>>>>>>>> plausibility of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world 
>>>>>>>> appearances much before I realised the physicists were already open to 
>>>>>>>> this for empirical reason. Once you understand that there are 
>>>>>>>> infinitely many computations going through you actual state,
>>>>>>> What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the 
>>>>>>> UD?
>>>>>> It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more 
>>>>>> precise way through the Gödel number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X 
>>>>>> modes (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p being limited to the sigma_1 
>>>>>> (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences.
>>>>> I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the UD 
>>>>> computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and 
>>>>> their interactions with some world they are embedded in?
>>>> This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations.
>>> Every computation is a person?
>> That would be a category error. We can only say that a person is associated 
>> to (infinitely many) computations, which are those bringing your state 
>> through your brain/body/history here and now.
> That is sufficiently vague so as to be meaningless. 

We assume Church’s thesis. "All computations" is very well defined.

> Which infinitely many computations? 

For s equal to 0, s(0), s(s(0)) … all phi_i,s(ji). That notion is phi_i 
independent for the first person statistics.

> Sometimes you write as if the computations are instantiating conscious 
> thoughts.  But other places you refer to the computations as being "below our 
> substitution level" implying that they are simulations of the brain or lower.

Consciousness is a first person attribute associated to any Löbian machine 
emulated in computations. Reread step 7 perhaps. I don’t see what you seem to 
miss. Below our substitution level, the details of the computation does not 
matter, and you cannot know if you are in a computation where some election is 
up or down in the relevant history, and this “triggers” the (global) first 
person indeterminacy on all diverging  locally non distinguishable 
computations, like in the Washington/Moscow thought experience. 

>>> What does it mean "a computation"? ...one of the threads of the UD?  or 
>>> some state of the UD?
>> A thread in the UD, or anything equivalent with the sequence (on s): phi_i,s 
>> (j), where the s is for the sth step of the computation. The UD run all 
>> phi_i,s (j), for all, i, j, and s.
>>>> To have a probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p & 
>>>> <>t. (Because with the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the 
>>>> “<>t” to avoid the cul-de-sac (cf the typical default hypothesis in 
>>>> probability theory).
>>>> The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are 
>>>> restricted by being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian 
>>>> machine “you are”.
>>> Consistent in what sense?  Just not proving a contradiction...how does  
>>> thread of the UD prove a contradiction?
>> The thread in the UD does not prove contradiction, but some threads support 
>> Löbian machine, which can be or not consistent. The FPI is on the thread 
>> which supports the consistent extension. (“Supports”, not “is”).
> Another vague term.  What does "supports" mean?

What is vague here? “Supports” means “emulates”, in the sense of Church, 
Turing, …, like in u emulates x on y when phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y).

>>> or does it mean consistent in the sense of representing a quasi-classical 
>>> world in which the electron's spin measures either UP of DOWN but not both?
>> No, that is for latter, and it concerns the “consistent continuations” as 
>> seen in the observable modes ([]p & X, with X being p, or <>p, or <>p & p), 
>> p sigma_1. It does not mean <>p (consistent p), but <>p v p, or, <>p v p v 
>> []f.
>>>> There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue 
>>>> consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only).
>>> So will it be apparently consistent?
>> Yes.
>>> What would it mean for it to be inconsistent?
>> To get a contradiction at some bottom level. To prove that 0 is equal to 1.
> So some thread of the UD proving 0=1? 

Of course not. As said above the UD does not prove anything, unless it is 
programmed in RA (sigma_1 provability is sigma_1 complete for computation), but 
those are not used here. Here, I was mentioning proof made by Löbian machines 
supported by the UD-computations.

> But the treads of the UD just compute...they don't prove anything. 

Yes, indeed.

> They are already assumed to be functions.


>>>   Logic is timeless so if it proves X and then it proves not-X that is a 
>>> contradiction.  But FP experience is not timeless,  so X can be true now 
>>> and not-X true later and there is no contradiction.
>> I military myself to sound (and thus automatically consistent) machine.
> But the UD is executing all possible machines.

Yes, and ? 

The point is that some computations execute, support, emulate … Löbian machine.

Cf the ontology is given by RA (Robinson Arithmetic)

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)

And an observer is any Löbian entity, emulated by that RA: like PA, which is

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)


P(0) & [For all n (P(n) -> P(s(n)))] ->. For all n P(n).

RA emulates PA and all Löbian machines’ activities, like your current reading 
of this post.

It is good to have in mind here that RA can emulates PA proving the consistency 
of RA, and that such emulation is NOT a proof by RA of the consistency of RA, 
like I can emulate “Einstein’s brain” does not make me into Einstein. 
“Emulation” and “computation” is not “proof”. 

>> Real machine in real life have a non monotonic layer so that they can revise 
>> their opinion. That is not needed to solve the mind body problem and to 
>> derive the physical appearance from arithmetic. To interview inconsistent 
>> machine would be like interviewing a sick people believing that he is 
>> Napoleon to study Napoleon’s life.
>>>>>> Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block 
>>>>>> picture (which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is 
>>>>>> purely phenomenological.
>>>>> ?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.  I 
>>>>> understand computations, like Turing machines, have states.  But I don't 
>>>>> understand these "actual states”.
>>>> I am not sure to understand your problem here. All mind state are actual 
>>>> from the first person point of view.
>>> "Mind state" = "a conscious thought"?  OK, but then how does that relate to 
>>> the computations of a UD?
>> We lost the mind-brain identity thesis. We can (by Mechanism) associate a 
>> mind to a machine, but the mind itself is truly associated to all 
>> computations, sufficiently similar (from the 1p view) to the one we start 
>> with.
> ?? What does "sufficiently similar" mean? 

It means “not distinguishable” from the first person point of view. That is why 
you have to take them into account to get the statistics right. The W-man and 
the M-man have enough similar processing at the start of their live in W M), 
and that is why we take into account in the calculus of the 1p indeterminacy.

> It's clear on a physical, neural computation theory of the mind, when 'mind' 
> is instantiated at a level far above and dependent on a physical level of 
> atoms and molecules.   But if mind is independent of that substrate it's not 
> clear that 'sufficiently similar' can be defined.

It means “not distinguishable” from the first person point of view. 

>> The brain-mind association is one-one, but the mind-brain(s) association is 
>> one-many.
>> Imagine that your brain is duplicated, so that there are two identical 
>> brains int who vats. Your consciousness is (non locally) associated to the 
>> two (identical relatively to the substitution level) brains.
> The brains can't be identical if they are in different locations. They are 
> distinct when one is duplicated.

But the consciousness is not. If it is, then it is not sufficiently similar. 
The similarity is 1p. If your brain is emulated by a Babbage machine in the 
year 46,000, or by a biological brain today, if the computation is the relevant 
one (which exists by assumption), then this provides two similar computation, 
despite being very different physically. We take all of them in the UD or 

>> But “in reality”, your mind is associated with all computations,
> Nonsense.  You're just obfuscating by using an undefined "association”.

Undefined? We assume computationalism, so we know that for any computations, 
there will be an infinity of “sufficiently similar” computations on the UD, and 
physics has to be retrieved from a statistic on those computations (in the 
relative indexical internal modes of self-reference). 

How would you select a computation among all relative computations?

>> and the consciousness differentiates on the computations which diverges 
>> above the substitution level.
> Note that the concept of "substitution level" already assumes a physical 
> substrate more fundamental that the computation.

I don’t see this. It assumes one universal system (and which one is 
unimportant), then the substitution level is defined (rigorously and 
necessarily NON constructively, whatever the digitalist surgeon claims) through 
the 1p invariance like above.

There is arguably some (necessary) fuzziness, here, which is why we use the 
modal logic of self-reference to put structure on the domain of indeterminacy 
(the consistent extension). Physics is given by the logic of []p & <>t (& p), 
with p semicomputable (semi-decidable, sigma_1). And that works till now.

>>>> The definition of “[]p” is already an indexical,
>>> "Indexical" literally means you can point to it.  I don't understand how 
>>> you are using the word.
>> In philosophy, “indexical” refer to words whose meaning depends on what we 
>> can point with an index, like the words “here”, “now”, “actual”, “me”, etc. 
>> The “[]p” means “I prove p”, with a third person notion of “I” (still 
>> indexical, like “my body”. The 1p I is given by the variants []p & p, []p & 
>> <>p, []p & <>p & p. Normally []p & <>p is the first person plural (but there 
>> some difficulties here: and it could be that []p & <>p & p is the more 
>> correct first person plural view. Quanta seems to be pure qualia, somehow, 
>> which is confirmed by QM, by the “superposition contagion” (which 
>> “duplicates” collection of machines).
>>>> and you can add axioms like “I am in Helsinki” or “I am in Washington”, 
>>>> which change the actual state/machine (but G and G* still applies to 
>>>> them). The phenomenologies are given by the hypostases. The physical 
>>>> phenomenologies is given by the sigma_1 sentences structured by the mode 
>>>> of each “material” hypostases (the one given by the X above).
>>>>>> We cannot define it in any 3p terms. It is pure 1p, but with mechanism,
>>>>> But the idea is to explain 1p experience in 3p terms, i.e. in terms of 
>>>>> computations.
>>>> At the meta level only. We can define, like Theaetetus, knowledge (which 
>>>> is 1p) by “[]p & p”, but only because we limit ourself, non 
>>>> constructively, to sound machine. The machine itself cannot do that: “[]p 
>>>> & p” cannot be define in the language of the machine, for reason similar 
>>>> as the fact that they cannot define truth.
>>>> This explains why the 1p “I” has to look non definable by each concerned 
>>>> entity about itself,
>>> Fine, I understand that.  But you propose that it is definable in terms of 
>>> the computations of the UD and that's the definition I seek.
>> The computation in the UD (or in RA) can support your consciousness (we 
>> *assume* digital mechanism).
> Again, the vague "supports”. 

Here it means “emulates the relevant dynamics on which your consciousness 
supervenes. There is nothing vague here. We *assume* computationalism! The 
substitution level asks for an act of faith. No machine can know for sure which 
is its substitution level.

> The hypothesis of comp is that the specific computation implemented in your 
> brain is what constitutes your consciousness and is the reason brains have 
> the complexity to instantiate consciousness while rocks don’t.

Indeed. But in arithmetic, your experience is supported by infinitely many 
computations, and physics becomes a statistics on all computations.

>> But your consciousness is supported (out of time and space) by all 
>> computations (the first person is not aware of the delay of “reconstitution” 
>> in the UD deployment).
> But in that case it would not be 'associated' with my brain and it would not 
> be 'about' this world.

Exactly. That is why the physical reality is most plausibly a useful fiction 
used by number theoretical entity trying to figure out what is real, and the 
theory of the machine shows here that this is testable.

You can attribute a consciousness to a computation relative to you, but a 
consciousness can only associate an infinity of computations to itself, and 
that plays a crucial role to derived physics from arithmetic or machine’s 
theology (G*).


> Brent
>> That association is provably not constructive. There is no algorithm to 
>> single out the computations which supports you in the UD deployment. That is 
>> why physics is expected to be not completely computable, but the 
>> distribution of probability can still, and should be, computably 
>> approximable.
>>>> and this is what lead to retrieved consciousness associated indexically, 
>>>> and non constructively, to the machine, if you are OK to define 
>>>> consciousness by (immediate, with <>t) knowable, indubitable, but also non 
>>>> rationally justifiable (provable) and non definable.
>>> Those are all 1p attributes of propositions.  The question is how they are 
>>> instantiated in the UD computations.
>> The 1p are instanced by the “[]p & p”, in all computations which run “[]”. 
>> (“[]” is the arithmetical Gödel’s provability predicate, []p is a particular 
>> sigma_1 sentence (even with p not sigma_1, but for the physics, we have to 
>> restrict the arithmetical interpretation of G on the sigma_1 p. We use G1 = 
>> G + “p->[]p”. That is enough (thanks to a result by Albert Visser).
>>>> Consciousness is just the name we give to that personal feeling.
>>>> You see that consciousness has no 3p definition from the machine’s point 
>>>> of view. But “we”, who knows that the machine is sound (because we limit 
>>>> ourself to such machine) can know and prove this. The machine can do the 
>>>> same about any machine supposed to be correct.
>>>>>> its (meta) logic is captured by the (3p describable if the machine 
>>>>>> assumes Mechanism) material mode.
>>>>>> We know that intuitively: the actual state of the guy in Moscow is “I am 
>>>>>> in Moscow”, and the actual state of the guy in Washington is “I am in 
>>>>>> Washington”. Both are correct, but as everyone know (except John 
>>>>>> apparently), both the W and M guys  feel their actual state as being 
>>>>>> very different of the mental state of their counterpart.
>>>>> The trouble with that explanation is that you have jumped from 
>>>>> description in terms of a UD, to a description in terms of a world with 
>>>>> Washington and Moscow and a duplicating machine.  Leaving a chasm of 
>>>>> explanation between the two.
>>>> Which chasm? Keep in mind that (at the meta-level) we assume 
>>>> computationalism. Whatever experience you live in the duplication 
>>>> experience in some “world” (assuming that exist), there will be 
>>>> computations in arithmetic mimicking those histories, and the 1p 
>>>> indeterminacy is on those computations. Again, I was assuming some “world” 
>>>> with Washington and Moscow, but that is neutral on the primary character 
>>>> that such world would have with the Materialist position, which is NOT 
>>>> assume.
>>> You say it is not assumed.  But you use it as though it is assumed and you 
>>> didn't derive it.
>> I don’t. In UDA I assume computers, doctors, and certainly a physical 
>> reality, of course, but not a primary one. Then in AUDA I assume no more 
>> than RA or Kxy = x + Sxyz = xz(yz). When I assume “doctors”, it is neutral 
>> if they are product of computations, or not, at the beginning stage of the 
>> reasoning, then all this is discharged all along the reasoning, and AUDA 
>> makes clear we do not assume more than RA or the combinators, or equivalent. 
>> Intuitively, that happens already at the step 7 and 8. At step seven, you 
>> should already understand that presupposing primary doctors, primary 
>> computers, … do not work, as you need to reintroduce a strong identity 
>> thesis which is incoherent with the fact that all computations are realised 
>> in arithmetic. How could a primary being do the selection without violating 
>> Mechanism?
>>>> That is already done at the step 1 of the UDA. There is a chasm only if 
>>>> you assume the ontological of world, but that is not in need to be 
>>>> assumed. Replace such world by any computation mimicking the world enough 
>>>> so that the 1p view cannot distinguish such world and the computation.
>>> Yes, I made that same point a long time ago, that if the UD is going to 
>>> produce conscious thoughts it must produce a "world" in which those are 
>>> thoughts about something.
>> Yes, but those “worlds” are only given by a statistics on all the other 
>> sufficiently similar computation. The AUDA mathematical part get a proximity 
>> relations on the sigma_1 sentences, and it obeys a quantum logic, giving 
>> hope we get something like the Born rule, and a corresponding “Gleason 
>> theorem” which would justify it.
>> If that is proved impossible, then we have refute Mechanism.
>>>> Take, in case you feel the substitution level is very low (fine grained) 
>>>> the Heisenberg Matrix of our cluster of galaxies at the level of quarks 
>>>> with 10^(100^1000) decimals. It is executed somewhere in the sigma_1 
>>>> arithmetical reality (by the comp assumption).
>>> It is not good enough to just say it must be in there somewhere "assuming 
>>> comp", because we are testing comp by seeing whether it describes 
>>> experience.
>> We can only test comp (in the 3p sharable way, or in the 1p plural way) by 
>> comparing the physics in the head of the machine with what we see. Without 
>> the quantum data, I would (and have, a long time ago) conclude that 
>> Mechanism is false or newly plausible.
>>> So it is evasive to say that in the infinitude of arithmetic and UD 
>>> computations, a descriptions of your experience, and any possible 
>>> experience, in in there.
>> It is just a fact that we have to take into account. There is no evasion, we 
>> make this precise by defining “observable with measure 1” by []p & <>p (& 
>> p),  and do the math. We get a modal logic close to B, which is related to 
>> quantum logic (by a result due to Goldblatt 1978).
>> 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.

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