On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 8:41:19 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:40, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 5:24:20 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 11:30, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:03:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:50, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:54:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Jan 2019, at 19:16, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:36:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Jan 2019, at 15:13, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:06:08 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019, at 22:27, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why - in  numerical reality (UD)  - can't there be vampires, 
>>>>>> werewolves, that sort of things? They can certainly be "created" in 
>>>>>> computer simulations of stories of them …
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly, that is why we need to recover physics by a notion of 
>>>>>> “bettable”. If you see a vampire, not explained by the notion of 
>>>>>> observable, you can infer that either:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mechanism is false, or
>>>>>> You are dreaming, or
>>>>>> You belong to a “malevolent” simulation (à-la Bostrom, made by angry 
>>>>>> descendent who want to fail us on reality).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately, we don’t see vampires, and up to know, thanks to QM, we 
>>>>>> see exactly what mechanism predicts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth Lloyd of course says the universe is a quantum computer. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would entail Mechanism, but Mechanism entails that the physical 
>>>>> universe is not a quantum computer, unless our substitution level is so 
>>>>> low 
>>>>> that we need to emulate the whole physical reality (not just the 
>>>>> observable 
>>>>> one) to get “my” consciousness. The term “universe” is also problematical 
>>>>> to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But what if there are qualia in addition to (or combined with) quanta 
>>>>> as the fundamental elements of nature. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can always speculate a non existing theory to “contradict” an 
>>>>> existing theory. Why assumes something when we can explain it without 
>>>>> assuming it. What if the thermodynamic of the car motion works only if 
>>>>> invisible horses pull the car?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nature is also a imprecise term. All my scepticism on the existence of 
>>>>> nature comes from the observation of nature. The physical science are not 
>>>>> the metaphysical science, unless we postulate (weak) materialism, which 
>>>>> is 
>>>>> inconsistent with mechanism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the quantum computer - a purely quantum information processing 
>>>>> (QuIP) machine - needs to be upgraded to a qualium(+quantum) 
>>>>> experience(+information) processing (QuEP) machine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With mechanism, the qualia are “easily” explained by the necessary 
>>>>> variant of provability logic in G*. To add “material” to this would 
>>>>> entail 
>>>>> the existence of infinitely many p.zombie in arithmetic, and makes both 
>>>>> consciousness and matter into irreductible mystery. What is the goal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The universe (now a QuEP machine) could have conscious beings who make 
>>>>> up stories about vampires and werewolves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The arithmetical universe? Yes. Necessarily so with the 
>>>>> computationalist hypothesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of your remark shows that you have not studied my contribution. 
>>>>> To avoid repetition, it might be useful to study it. Just criticising a 
>>>>> conclusion because we have another theory is not that much interesting, 
>>>>> especially when the “other theory” is not presented in a specific way (as 
>>>>> your use of many links illustrates).
>>>>>
>>>>> All what I can say is that you are logically coherent: you believe in 
>>>>> matter and you believe that mechanism is false. But the empirical facts 
>>>>> go 
>>>>> in the opposite direction. The empirical test of the existence of primary 
>>>>> matter that I have given fails up to now.The world would be Newtonian, 
>>>>> Mechanism would be judged reasonably refuted. Gödel + EPR-Everett saves 
>>>>> Mechanism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> I don't think your theory refutes the existence of matter. (That would 
>>>> be a surprise to materials scientists, fro example.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I first made the theory public, the opposition did not come from 
>>>> physicists, nor mathematicians, but from materialist philosophers. But I 
>>>> do 
>>>> not defend any personal idea: it is not my theory, but the theory of any 
>>>> universal machine “rich enough” to know (in the Theaetetus sense) that 
>>>> they 
>>>> are universal. Then we can test that theory as it implies the physical 
>>>> laws.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At best, your theory (universal numbers, machines, dovetailers) is a 
>>>> possible *denotational semantics* for experiential processing, which 
>>>> *takes 
>>>> place in matter*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That seems a bit weird. Denotatotional semantics is OK (although to 
>>>> rough for this complex subject), but why assume Matter, when a theory 
>>>> implies it appearances. If we get a discrepancy between physics and 
>>>> machine’s physics, it will make sense to suppose some matter, and 
>>>> mechanism 
>>>> false, but that is, before having evidences, quite speculative, and 
>>>> conceptually unclear. It is almost like invoking a god in an explanation, 
>>>> to avoid an explanation. 
>>>>
>>>> You added: <<A better way: *Matter does explain consciousness, once 
>>>> the true nature of matter is appreciated.>>*
>>>>
>>>> What is the true nature of matter? By making matter primitive, it looks 
>>>> we avoid the question of its “true nature”, which with mechanism is purely 
>>>> phenomenological.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are always different perspectives. Take the PLT (programming 
>>> language theory) perspective, or at UCNC 2019, (unconventional) UPLT.
>>>
>>> Consider immersive virtual reality (IVR) programs. An IVR program will 
>>> compile into an object (code) that does a whole bunch of stuff with a whole 
>>> bunch of electronics attached to your head and maybe whole body. It can 
>>> have a denotational semantics, which, in a gaming context (game your 
>>> semantics) could involve modal logics. But there is also its operational 
>>> semantics, and then physical semantics (the power consumption of the 
>>> apparatus, its graphical grade of quality, ...) which depends on the 
>>> physical substrate of the program, and, potentially, its experiential 
>>> semantics (as you yourself become immersed in its environment).
>>>
>>> The point is that a denotational semantics, like the Gödel-Löb type 
>>> modal logics for agent programs, is an important part of  (intelligent to 
>>> conscious) agent programming, but there is more to semantics (as in PLT 
>>> semantics), like physical and experiential semantics, especially as agents 
>>> will be produced by new technologies like nanotechnology and synthetic 
>>> biology. 
>>>
>>> As for matter, to quote a line from W.H. Auden, "... Matter is / Odder 
>>> that we thought.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why to invoke them? You don’t answer my question. I have really no clue 
>>> what you mean by matter, and why you want it to be a primary notion 
>>> (besides 1500 years of dogmatic brainwashing on it).
>>>
>>> If you think that nanotechnology or synthetic biology violate Church’s 
>>> thesis, then that would refute Mechanism, and would makes primary matter 
>>> consistent with the fact, but still very doubtable. If mechanism is true, 
>>> on the contrary, the problem is solved, even constructively, so that we can 
>>> test it.  Today, the evidences are for mechanism. I have never heard about 
>>> an evidence for materialism, no more than for vitalism. Those are 
>>> simplifying idea, useful methodologically in applied science, but they 
>>> should not be taken literally when doing metaphysics with the scientific 
>>> method.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The ultimate dogmatic brainwashing of course is *Platonism* - the 
>> Platonism of mathematics in particular - that mathematical objects have a 
>> real existence. Generations of school children are brainwashed by Platonism.
>>
>>
>> Platonism (in metaphysics) is under the rug since 1500 years. The 
>> platonism have escaped to the Middle-East, where Plato will not be 
>> completely forgotten up to 1258.
>>
>> Platonism of mathematics should be called realism in mathematics, as the 
>> relation with Plato’s philosophy is a complex domain. But I don’t see any 
>> brainwashing here. It is not taught at all, and in europa, it is not even 
>> well seen, as compared to Aristotle’s naturalism.
>>
>> Anyway, the question is if it is true or false. In mathematics, mechanism 
>> restricts realism only to finite mathematics, or arithmetic. This is 
>> basically the idea that 2+2=4, and that this is true independently of me. 
>> If you have a reason to doubt that, you can give it, but usually this is 
>> not problematical. It is taught at primary school, and I have never heard 
>> anyone contesting it outside philosophers who want to avoid metaphysical 
>> consequences for reason of personal taste.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Of course there are math professors (Dr. Z at Rutgers) who teach on the 
> evils of Platonism. And "Truth" is like God, as Rorty said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is a good summary of Plato. Hirsschberger sum up Plato by saying that 
> the God of Plato is Truth. Not the one we make public, but the one we 
> search.
>
> Now, all my life I have got the feeling that Plato is dismissed, and badly 
> seen, notably in opposition to Aristotle. But Aristotle did not understood 
> Plato, except in a curious passage of the “metaphysics” where he seems to 
> suddenly got the point, and seems to come back to Plato without saying (but 
> that is an optimistic reading of Aristotle’s metaphysics, To be sure I 
> found some scholars who saw that too, like Gerson. 
>
> That "truth is God" makes sense for a computationalist, because “truth” 
> when encompassing the description of a machine at its correct substitution 
> level, is no more definable by that machine. Yes, Truth, and semantics, is 
> very much like the platonician notion of God. You force me to agree with 
> Rorty on this!
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
I read some philosophy (particularly of mathematics) before my 1979 Ph.D. 
After that was out of the way, I began to read a lot more. Two books came 
out in 1979 which impacted me early:

  GEB: Gödel, Escher, Bach ( Douglas Hofstadter)
  PMN: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Richard Rorty)

After 40 years now, "Rortian" is as succinct a term as any (if I had to 
choose one word) to say what my philosophy is.  


- 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 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