On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Sep 2019, at 15:18, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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. >
*No. A computer cannot calculate any irrational exactly. It can only approximate them, such as PI. AG * > > > > 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] <javascript:>. > 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/437b0786-30e7-4854-8146-c144111abc09%40googlegroups.com.
