> On 24 Sep 2019, at 17:03, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > <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.
Nor could a human. > 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, OK. And that is how we define what is a computable real number. We can compute the approximations. Actually we need also to be able to compute a modulus of convergence, to assure that addition of the computable real numbers is a computable operation. Turing get this wrong in his paper, but corrected this in a footnote in most re-publication of his paper. > 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 Yes, in classical logic/theories, most real numbers are not computable. Note that in intuitionistic mathematics, Brouwer has introduce the axioms that all real numbers are computable, but as I use classical logic, that does not concern us. Yet that play a role in the logic of the subject ([]p & p, S4Grz, …). Bruno > > > >> 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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb03d141-c9d5-43cc-92d7-e5f287a709a1%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/C573C992-9592-4400-B4D1-4CE9129B1A14%40ulb.ac.be.
