> On 10 Jul 2019, at 15:28, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:22 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> >> You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you have
> >> survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness intact
> >> (and only you know if it has)
>
> > OK. That is my point.
>
> No, I wish it were but that is not your point, if it were you wouldn't have
> made the following silly remark.
Which remark? Please quote with respect to what you try to convey. Avoid term
like “silly”.
>
> > No, saying that you survive a digital substitution at some level, is the
> > hypothesis/axiom of Mechanism, like saying that 0 is different from s(x)
> > for any x is an hypothesis/axiom of elementary arithmetic.
>
> For god's sake! You don't need mathematical notation to figure out if you are
> conscious or not or to figure out that if you've already survived one brain
> transplant, and you have, then there is no reason to think you won't survive
> another one.
You are not at the right level. When we do a theory, we put as axioms
everything that we cannot derive from less axiom.
In the theory RA (Robinson arithmetic): we use explicitly an axiomatisation of
propositional logic, like the axiom of Hilbert Ackermann:
A -> (B -> A)
Etc.
+ the axioms for the quantisers.
We give the rule of reasoning, like the modus ponens {A, A -> B} / B, and the
“necessitation” rule for the for all quantifier (x) ( {A(x) / (x)A(x)
And then the so called non logical axioms, using the first formal symbols F_0,
F_1, R_1, etc., except we use the usual symbols to ease the intended
interpretation (in arithmetic that is easy, because we have a clear informal
undersatidng of the natural numbers), the symbols 0, s, +, *.
Here they are:
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
Similarly, to make the digital mechanist hypothesis as precise as possible, we
proceed in a similar way, eventually mechanism will correspond to a retraction
of truth to the partial computable truth (the sigma_1-truth, or the universal
dovetailing).
We need to be precise to understand well what the Lôbian universal machine will
say about all this.
Keep in mind that the ontology for mechanism will be shown to be given by the
axiom above, without adding anything.
An observer will be defined by the same axioms + the induction axioms. They are
richer entities than the ontology, but RA can prove their existence, and can
imitate them (but of course RA cannot prove if they are right or wrong, and
that play a key role in the sequel).
>
> > It is conceivable that the copy of me acts exactly like me, but that we die
> > in the transplant process.
>
> It is conceivable
That’s the point.
> but the only one that knows if that happened during your last brain
> transplant, the one that replaced the atoms you had last year with new ones,
> is you. If it didn't happen then there is no reason to think it will happen
> in your next brain transplant.
>
> > Plato was just the guy having a scientific attitude (doubt, skepticism)
> > toward the popular and religious/metaphysical belief that there is a
> > physical universe (in its primary or irreductible sense made precise later
> > by Aristotle who came back to that idea).
>
> Neither Plato or Aristotle ever performed a single exparament in their life.
Plato gives rise to Plotinus, who gives right to Hypatia who made extraordinary
experience in astronomy and optics.
Yes, science was theoretical at the start, but Aristotle made the first
systematic observation on plants and animals, he created logic, biology, and
provided the motivation (and alas the bad ontology, if mechanism is correct)
for physics.
> Many of their ideas, like heavy objects fall more quickly than light ones or
> that men have more teeth than woman could have been disproved with a simple
> exparament that would have taken less than 2 minutes to perform, but they
> never bothered. They thought they could figure out how the world worked just
> by sitting and thinking. That is the very opposite of the scientific attitude.
I prefer to keep my mind where they convinced me more than the current
materialists. I take the good in people, and does not mention what I find not
OK, or where my understanding is less advanced.
Being shown mistaken is an honour in science, but we are not programmed to
appreciate too much, I am pretty sure Plato did not have any problem with that,
as he shows wise people discussing calmly, and never using insult or such kind
of non-argument, BTW.
>
> >> I already know how the word "faith" is defined in the English Language and
> >> it's not worth my time to learn the definition in Brunospeak as you are
> >> the only one that uses that language.
>
> > In science, we redefined all terms used in the mundane language.
>
> But you are not Mr. Science and you are not Mr. English so you can't expect
> to unilaterally change the meaning of important words and still effectively
> communicate.
In science we let anyone redefine any term in any theory. No scientist would
dare to criticise a use of a term, because that would betray is non scientific
attitude.
How could a theory of *everything* not be a theology, given that it will have
to say that if there is 0 gods, or 1 god, or two gods, or 3 gods, or … aleph_0
gods, or …., or to say “open problem”.
But don’t attribute me this attitude, it *is* the attitude of modesty: in
metaphysics, you have to be able to doubt all ontological commitment, and in
particular to doubt the existence of irreducibly physical attribute. You can
define god by what remains in case the physical universe appears to be an
illusion, even if a persistent one (to quote Einstein).
> >>> [blah blah] that is in accordance with classical greek theology.
>
> >> Then it is almost certainly wrong.
>
> > On this matter, you can’t have both Plato and Aristotle wrong,
>
> That is incorrect. It's easy for 2 people who hold incompatible views to both
> be wrong if both are ignoramuses, and compared to a bright modern fourth
> grader they both are.
In metaphysics:
Aristotle = what I see is what exist
Plato = I am not sure of that, what I see might be the shadows of something
else, maybe the ideas, maybe the numbers.
In modern term:
Aristotle = assume weak materialism or physicalism
Plato = do not assume weak materialism or physicalism
That is the big choice in the rational conception of a possible reality. God =
Matter, or God ≠ Matter.
>
> >> So we agree that I can't prove it and it would in no way effect my
> >> decision to say yes to the doctor or yes to being frozen even if I could.
> >> So what are we arguing about?
>
> > Good question. Once you agree that we cannot prove Mechanism, we agree.
> > That was the point where you seemed to disagree.
>
> I've said 99 times that nobody can prove they're conscious and nobody ever
> will, and I've said 99 time that nobody needs to prove it to say yes to the
> doctor, which is what you call Mechanism.
Caution. There is a difference between “I cannot prove I am conscious” and “I
cannot prove mechanism”.
I cannot prove that I am conscious, but I can know that I am conscious.
I cannot prove mechanism, but I cannot know that it is true, before doing the
experience, and I cannot prove mechanism, even after the experience.
It is a theological axioms, in the sense that it is a belief in a form of
reincarnation. It requires some leap of faith, both for its truth, but also for
the choice of the substitution level, and of course for the competence of the
doctor.
>
> >> I define "magic carpet" as a rug that can fly. Like you I give no hint as
> >> to how to build such a thing but unlike you and your "Löbian machine" at
> >> least from my description you can recognize a magic carpet for what it is
> >> if you happen to see one. But neither you or I or Löb has any way of
> >> telling if something is a "Löbian machine" or not. Which means the
> >> "Löbian machine" idea can not help anyone understand anything.
>
> > You loss me here.
>
> Which word didn't you understand? The only one I don't is "Löbian machine”
?
I have given the definition recently. A Lôbian machine is a universal machine
believing (asserting) the theorem of RA, and the induction axioms. Its
provability logic is the one given by the modal logic G and G*. They are called
Löbian, because the main axiom of G is the formula of Löb: []([]p->p)->[]p.
Typical exemple are diverse version of Peano arithmetic, and all its consistent
extensions, or theories in which we can build interpretation of Peano axioms,
like ZF.
>
> >> Turing explained in complete detail exactly how to build one of his
> machines, but neither you or anybody else has ever provided a hint as to how
> to make one of these things, you don't even tell us how we can recognize a
> Löbian machine if we see one as you don't say what the machine looks like or
> what it can do or but only what it "knows". In contrast Turing told us that
> not all machines are Turing Machines and taught us how to tell the
> difference. So it's not surprising that, at least according to Google, nobody
> but you believes the Löbian machine concept to be useful and uses it.
>
> > No. It is a key chapter in mathematical logic,
>
> How odd that both Google and Bing know nothing about a key chapter in
> mathematical logic!
That is an argument per authority.
>
> > Of course if you know how to build a Turing machine from Turing’s theory,
>
> And I do.
>
> > you can build a Löbian machine with the same ease.
>
> But I don't know how to construct a working Löbian machine
Build a Turing machine (the set of quadruplets) emulating a theorem prover of
PA, or ZF.
Any digital machine capable of proving elementary theorem on its own
functioning, and disposing on some induction axiom is a Löbian machine.
If you can build a Turing machine, you can build a Löbian machine, because it
is just a particular case of Turing machine, or pattern of the Game of Life, or
a fortran program.
> and I don't even know how I'd recognize it if I saw one.
Nobody can do that, except for some very particular one, like PA, ZF, ...
> I'd ask you to tell me how to construct such a device or at least tell me how
> I can differentiate between a Löbian machine and a non-Löbian machine
Like all programs or digital machine, we can construct some having some
attribute,like Löbianity, but there is no no algorithm to differentiate them
systematically. It is like the insolubility of the word problem in group theory.
> but I know there is not a snowball's chance in hell of you ever doing that.
> Instead you'll just type out some ASCII characters and claim that is a
> machine.
On the contrary, I will give you some ASCII, but like for the numbers, I will
insist you understand that they are not symbols, but mathematical object
obeying some laws, etc.
>
> > I use the purely mathematical notion of machine, like Turing an all
> > computer scientist.
>
> NO!! Turing told us EXACTLY how to make a real machine,
I am talking about Turing paper in computability theory. Not Turing’s building
a “real machine” to win the war against the Germans.
Yes, for pedagogical reason, the Turing formalism looks more like a human
(BTW), which was the goal. But even Turing will use the von Neuman model of
computation to implement his “Turing machine” (which are mathematical object,
indeed it is Turing who will prove them equivalent to lambda calculus, etc.
> and the fact that it gave birth to a multi trillion dollar industry is proof
> he was on to something. When I see a multi trillion dollar (or even a multi
> hundred dollar) Löbian machine industry I'll know you were right. I'm not
> holding my breath.
Some AI are already Löbian, and Boyer and Moore have programmed one explicitly.
All self-referentially correct machine believing in enough of arithmetic is
Löbian.
You make dismissive and negative remarks which have no relevance with the
discovery I try to share.
>
> > That is not Aristotle theology.
>
> Bruno, I don't give a rats ass what is or what is not Aristotle theology.
But Aristotle Theology seems to be your theology. It is the doctrine asserting
that there is a physical universe irreducible to numbers (contra Pythagorus, or
ideas contra Plato).
Aristotle theology is what I called also “weak materialism”: the belief in
Matter (with a big M).
>
> >> Nobody in the history of the world as been able to calculate 2+2 without
> >> using matter that obeys the laws of physics and I further claim that even
> >> matter can't make a calculation unless it is organized in the ways Turing
> >> described and a mathematical textbook, even a very good one, is not one of
> >> those ways, that's why nobody replaces circuit boards with textbooks in
> >> their computers.
>
> > A test book is not a program.
>
> And no program in the history of the world has ever calculated 2+2 without
> the help of a computer
A computer is a universal number. That is what Truing has discovered.
A Turing machine is a set of quadruplets, and a universal Turing machine is a
special set of quadruplet such that if you put n and m on the machine’s “tape”,
she will compute phi_n(m), where phi_i is the enumeration of the partial
functions computed by the Turing machines.
Yes, in appearance, there is a Turing universal reality, and a physical
computer is an implementation of a universal number through some subset of the
physical laws. But to understand the sequel, you need to understand that a
computer is not the same as a physical computer. A computer, or universal
Turing machine, is a special set of quadruplets, codable in numbers.
> made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Yes hardware needs software
> but software needs hardware just as much.
You come back with your assumption that some hardware would be more real than
other, but then you have to tell me what it is, and how it interfere with the
computations in arithmetic.
All you need is a universal machinery, but a tiny segment of the arithmetical
reality has been proved to be enough, and Gödel did already 99,9% of the proof
of this in 1931.
>
> > What on earth are you talking about?! The atoms that made up you last year
> > have been replaced with new atoms and yet you are still conscious (or at
> > least I am) therefore there is no need to take every atom into account.
>
> > Assuming mechanism,
>
> Therefore if you don't assume mechanism then you Bruno Marchal are not
> conscious.
That does not follow.
> Therefore you Bruno Marchal had better assume mechanism
It is my working hypothesis. But I grant consciousness to non-mechanist people.
Indeed, arithmetic contains an infinity of subject believing that mechanism is
false.
>
> > but the point is that we cannot prove it.
>
> So tell me, do you think It's a little silly to keep making the same point to
> somebody if they have already agreed with it over and over and over and over
> again?
>
> > Not that I want defend communism, but I will still be open to the idea, if
> > it is not imposed by force.
>
> Communism says the state can take all my stuff so it can be equally
> distributed (although some people are more equal than others), but if I
> disagree with that idea and don't want anybody to take my stuff then the
> state must use force, and history has certainly shown they are not shy about
> doing exactly that. In the 20th century communism was tried in many countries
> and every single time it has lead to disaster. Of the 4 greatest monsters of
> the 20th century 3 of them, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, were communists.
But in the European countries we have socialist and communist party, and up to
now, they have respected the democracy and the rule of laws. The problem is not
communism, or western-liberalism, the problems are bandits and dictators, or
con man exploiting fears, etc.
>
> > if my mind operate at the level of gluons, (which I agree is newly
> > plausible),
>
> I would say that is astronomically implausible!
I agree, but when doing science, that has to be taken into account, like in
quantum computation theory we need to take into account the difference between
probability one, and probability one minus epsilon, etc.
>
> > it might be that the replacement is made following the instructions
> present in my gluons, and replacing them without going through the usual
> natural process would not work.
>
> You can't replace atoms without replacing gluons and your last year atoms
> have been replaced.
Yes, but my friend who got gluons form chicken want to fly … (grin).
>
> > You are the one who insist to use God in the christian sense.
>
> OK, so in the language of Brunospeak the following statement is true
> "Christians think God does not exist". And in Clarkspeak (which is just like
> English except it reverses the meaning of the words "yes" and "no") if I
> asked "do you agree 100% with every word I've ever written" you would answer
> "yes”.
You just show your ignorance. You fight with all your force to maintain the
statu quo for the Church. You belong to the soldier who protect the
confessional authoritarian theologian against the bastard greek pagan
philosophers who rise the doubt in the mind of the student. You are the best
guardian of the Church most important dogma: Matter.
Mechanism, well understood, is more atheist than you: no Creator, no Creation,
just a universal dreamer lost and multiplied in the arithmetical reality.
>
> > It looks like brunospeak (and ad hominem term, BTW)
>
> You never named your new made up language and I'm sorry if you don't like
> "Brunospeak" but I've got to call it something and I certainly can't call it
> English with so many radical new definitions of very important words.
But you confess never have read any neoplatonicians (a quite vast literature),
so are you sure that you are not just radicalising yourself with respect of
anyone who know at the least that pagan theology has existed long before
christianism?
You make me an honnor that I do not deserve. It is not Brunospeak, it is
Platospeak. Plato & Many Co.
Eventually, it the PAs in RA, also.
> I didn't know what else to call it, if you have another name for your new
> language I'll use it,
Try PlotinusSpeak.
> although I won't bother to learn the language itself because a language known
> to only one man is not of much use.
It is used by all metaphysicians capable of doubting the Christian Dogma (which
came after 529) or the Muslim dogma (which can after 1248).
>
> If you don't like Brunospeak I have a suggestion, how about Newspeak?
>
> > you admit never having read Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Damascius,
>
> Because I have better things to do with my time than to read the ramblings of
> people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Apparently you don't have
> anything better to do.
>From A is wrong on this, you deduce that A is wrong of that.
Not valid.
>
> >> Being frozen might or might not work but it will certainly not make
> >> anybody deader, so I don't see how it could have a moral dimension at all.
>
> > If it does not work, and impose it to somebody, you are killing that
> > somebody. The moral dimension is related to “thou shall not kill”.
>
> Instead of freezing a cadaver would it be more moral to put it in the ground
> and let it be eaten by worms or burn it up in a furnace?
The pioneer of immortality will go to hell.
Why? Because they will give their Gödel number to everybody (an infinity of
humans, notably)/
Why? Because they are born before the absolute quantum encryption encoding,
discover in 4000, which guaranties no one can copy you. That will make the
humans in between 2000 and 4000 the prey of all sadists in the multiverse …
Maybe. Just a reason to be better burn the cadaver, instead of taking the risk
to give your code to unknown people.
>
> >> Without matter that obeys the laws of physics you can't perform ANY
> >> operation on words, simple or otherwise.
>
> > That is your religion, again and again.
>
> In Brunospeak (or Newspeak) perhaps it is, you're the expert on that not me.
Yes, you invoke your ontological commitment all the time.
Bruno
>
> > It is my definition of atheist: the believer in Matter.
>
> And that is a good illustration of why I had to invent the word "Brunospeak".
>
> > I guess I'm more religious than you, at least in Brunospeak.
>
> > Of course you are more religious. You believe in in grey amorphous Blob of
> > indeminate size.
>
> And that is yet another example of why I had to invent the word "Brunospeak".
>
> John K Clark
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wcnor%3D%2BSS2EGuf5g%2B-YtUNF0jdj8Lex_cEXJZ6etHbw%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wcnor%3D%2BSS2EGuf5g%2B-YtUNF0jdj8Lex_cEXJZ6etHbw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3D11B4BD-9AA5-4874-8333-A46C863111A6%40ulb.ac.be.
