> On 23 Sep 2019, at 15:18, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:21:38 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 2:44:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 21 Sep 2019, at 17:00, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 4:02:09 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> I think he means one can replace a human brain and/or nervous system with >> computer microchips and consciousness will be preserved, or perfectly >> simulated so the person who says "Yes doctor", will awake from the surgery >> thinking he/she's the same person, like awakening from unremarkable surgery. >> From my pov, this belief is a huge, huge stretch since we can even define >> what consciousness IS. AG >> >> Bruno; does "Yes doctor" mean that a patient accepts as fact that removing >> his/her brain and/or nervous system and replacing it with microcircuits >> preserving the same functions, yields a surgical result such that the >> patient upon awakening seems to him or herself, and others, as the same >> "person" who previously approved the surgery? > > The patient cannot accept this as a fact. It is something he can hope only. > Then, if mechanism is true, by definition he was correct, but even after the > operation, he cannot claim that as a fact, despite its personal impression. > He might have lose a faculty and not be aware of it, like people can become > blind and be unaware of the change, in some special brain disease > (anosognosia). > > > >> Is this the essence of mechanism? If not, please elaborate. TIA, AG > > > Yes, it is mechanism, but it requires an act of faith. > > Now, to be sure, taking a plane, or even a bike, requires some faith too, but > here, that play an important role in the sequel, and so that nuance has to be > taken into account. > > Rational machine have a surrational corona extending what they can justify. > That corona has a precise mathematical structure, and is used to derive the > laws of physics from arithmetic. > > Bruno > > Can you name one law you have established or proved using your theory? AG
I have written a theorem prover generating the propositional physical laws. It predicts many laws including the very existence of non trivial physical laws, and the quantum nature of the observable. It predicts general statements, like the bottom of the physical reality is highly symmetrical (and plausibly necessarily reversible). Then it predicts the qualia and consciousness, at a place where physics is either wrong or dismiss its existence and makes it into an illusion. Keep in mind that Mechanism is not an hypothesis in physics, but in cognitive science. This predicted the possibility of AI (the reason what I have mocked 40 years ago). I am not so much proposing a new theory than showing that all physicalist theory of everything are wrong if we assume Mechanism (like Descartes, Darwin, and many others more or less explicitly). > > Calculating everything, even if that were possible, The possibility of this is a theorem in arithmetic + Church’s thesis. > doesn't mean you know anything! We agree on that. You know the main axiom from which I derive everything is named “the Modesty axiom” by Rohit Parikh and Raymond Smullyan. Not only I don’t know everything, but I know-for-sure only my consciousness, and only god knows if I know more than that. But I have theories/beliefs, and I show how to test them. > How would you know our universe uses inverse square for gravity (to a good > approximation) and not inverses of higher order? That kind of thing is explained by many theorems in mathematics already. A beautiful illustration is given in the following very nice video which computes the sum of the inverse of saure numbers 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + 1/25 + … using (and explaining) the inverse square laws. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-o3eB9sfls I can’t use this with Mechanism though, because we have not yet extracted any notion of physical space (although I do have ideas how to get them, but the math get very complex. A recent progress has been made as it is related to possible deep relation between the theory of brads and knots and very large cardinal in set theory (the cardinal of Laver). > Also, since no computer can calculate a single irrational number, That is false. A computer can calculate PI, e, sqrt(2), sqrt(3), sqrt(5) etc.. all irrational. > they can only calculate to a measure zero (the rationals) of what exists; not > to mention the finite time constraint for any of these calculations. AG If you study my papers, you will see that the physical laws are not computable: they emerge from the first person indeterminacy (step 3) and the delay invariance (step 2 and 4). The universal machine is partially computable only, which means that she is partially not computable, also, and that plays a key role, for both consciousness and matter. Bruno > > > > >> >> >> -- >> 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/f2deceff-c0b2-4991-b54b-c8b78a8b46e8%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2deceff-c0b2-4991-b54b-c8b78a8b46e8%40googlegroups.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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/724bb52f-9ce3-4cd9-9e1b-6323630c5138%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/724bb52f-9ce3-4cd9-9e1b-6323630c5138%40googlegroups.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/2F1BE29A-5C3F-4371-8678-2A693183C0C2%40ulb.ac.be.
