On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:22:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 May 2019, at 13:03, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 5:34:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 3 May 2019, at 16:10, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> The general response here is that there has never existed a program that >> has executed outside a computer. And computers are made of matter. >> >> >> That is false. Programs have been discovered in arithmetic, like prime >> numbers. Computations are number relation (the sigma_1 one). >> >> “ >> > > Who discovered arithmetic and where is it? > > > Arithmetic is known by human before they developed written language, and > the first proof of sophisticated result, are 5000 years old, with the > tablets showing those ancient people got all Pythagorean triples. > > > > > I get the idea that Arthur Conan Doyle "discovered" Sherlock Holmes, and > he "is" in books and people's brains (imaginations). > > > Arithmetic has been found independently by Chinese, Indian, europeans, > etc. Everyone agree on all arithmetical proposition, without any exception. > It is used all the time, everyday, and your laptop would cease functioning > if only one arithmetical proposition would be false. Sherlock Holmes is a > creation of the mind by Doyle. You can meet human approximating him, but > even if they look very similar, it is not Sherlock Holmes, by definition. > > > > But arithmetic actually has no more reality than that, outside of its > operations in brains and man-made things. One can say DNA or other natural > things is "doing" arithmetic and so forth. That kind of thing. > > But where is this thing you call arithmetic? > > > Numbers, and arithmetical relation are out of the category of things to > which “where” applies, unless you define “where” in some arithmetical > sense, like when we say that 10^100 is far from 0, but of course, this is > not used in the physical sense. > > On the contrary, the physical “whereness” is derived from mechanism and > arithmetic. > > The theory of everything is explicitly given by classical logic + > > 1) 0 ≠ s(x) > 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y) > 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) > 4) x+0 = x > 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y) > 6) x*0=0 > 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > If you eliminate just one axiom from that theory, you get very interesting > theories, but none is Turing complete. > > We can use anything Turing equivalent. I have proven recently and > explicitly on this list that the following theory is Turing complete: > > 1) If A = B and A = C, then B = C > 2) If A = B then AC = BC > 3) If A = B then CA = CB > 4) KAB = A > 5) SABC = AC(BC) > > Those two theories lead to the same machine theology, and thus the same > physics, and up to now, it fits with Nature, and explains entirely what is > consciousness and where it comes from. > > Bruno > > >
I still don't get how a unique physics comes out of a particular Theory Of Arithmetic (TOA) -- Is a theory of dark matter already lurking within TOA ready to be derived? -- but as for arithmetic being "universal" among cultures, arithmetical abilities are also found in other animals, like birds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence Just as there is panexperientialism -- experientiality at various (proto) levels is found universally in all matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Panexperientialism -- and panlinguisticism -- ditto language -- there is panarithmeticalism. Matter has all these aspects: experiential, grammatical, arithmetical. @philipthrift -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f7181fcd-36b3-495c-a3de-4ad89e33337b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
