On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:40:34 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 4:20:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> > On 2 Aug 2019, at 00:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/1/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> This is the tour de force of the Theaetetus definition when applied in >> the Mechanist frame: it explains why machines are necessarily confronted >> with things which are not only not computable, but not representable in any >> third person way. >> >> The corresponding logic (the modal logic of [1]p, with [1]p defined by >> []p & p), i.e. S4Grz is a formal logic describing a non formalisable >> reality accessed by all (sound) machine. Yes, that is a (meta- tour de >> force, made possible tanks to Gödel completeness and Incompleteness >> theorem, together with Tarski un-definability of truth theorem (and >> Scott-Montague un-definability of knowledge theorem). >> >> >> >> Qualia are non physical and non numerical, yet phenomenologically real >> and explained or “meta-explained”, like for consciousness. >> > >> > But this is not at all convincing. Just because some things >> (reflective relations) are not computable by the prefect logic machine does >> not show they are models or instances of qualia. Qualia are perceptions for >> example, which are partly shareable. >> >> We share only the number relations. Not the qualia itself. We only >> projects ours on others, when enough similar to us. >> >> The machine qualia are not just non computable, they are non definable >> and obey to a logic of qualia known before we found it in the discourse of >> the machines. They have a conical perceive field associated with them. A >> good paper is the paper on quantum logic by John Bell (not the physicists, >> but the logician). There are some mistake in that paper, but not relevant >> here. >> >> Bell, J. L. (1986). A new approach to quantum logic. Brit. J. Phil. Sci., >> 37:83-99. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > If qualia are not "number relations" then they must be substances on their > own. > > And what is substance that is (at least partly) non-numerical: matter. > > @philipthrift >
Matter has its origin in either the condensate interaction of Goldstone-Higgs bosons or with strong asymptotic QCD. With the Goldstone bosons the degree of freedom of the scalar fields enters into a longitudinal degree of freedom in weak flavor changing or isospin fields or in fermions. With QCD the interaction is strong so there is no possible escape for a the massless gauge boson or gluon. So one can think of these as a situation where a massless particle is trapped in some small volume so from a large scale it appears to be a massive particle with a timelike direction. There really is not anything else to it. LC -- 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/30c64543-dfae-4e9a-8965-f9173439e048%40googlegroups.com.
