On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:52:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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]> 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 * >
*With PI, you at least have a series representation and can approximate it to any degree desirable, but with most of the others you don't even know how to represent them mathematically and thus haven't a prayer for calculating them. 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]. >> 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/fb03d141-c9d5-43cc-92d7-e5f287a709a1%40googlegroups.com.
