On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:47:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Sep 2019, at 17:03, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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 >>> >>> 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, …). >
*Listen; you can't compute, even approximately, a real number you have no way of defining. In fact, the act of defining it, would be tantamount to computing it! So this is all nonsense. But let's suppose the monkey at the keyboard produces a text defining the axioms of QM, along with a multitude of other theories. Without a physical universe to test these theories, there's no way to determine which one is "true". Frankly, I don't see what's been discovered by "computability". AG * > > 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/ee2e1087-327f-495e-9b0d-f192665dff0b%40googlegroups.com.
