> On 27 Sep 2019, at 11:23, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 >> <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.
No problem with this. I cannot compute a non computable real. OK. > In fact, the act of defining it, would be tantamount to computing it! Hmm… OK (with a large sense of tantamount). But what I can still do, is generating it, even if I will generate many other real numbers, and be unable to recognise where is the one which is uncomputable. > So this is all nonsense. You confuse generating the decimal of a real number, and just that one (computable real number), and generating a real number, among many one. That are different procedures. > 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”. With mechanism, no universe, nor god, could do that. But the relative state of the machine have just the math showing that the physical reality will look like a quantum multiverse, so no need to add a universe when actually, it cannot do the work we would expect it to do, without violating Mechanism. > Frankly, I don't see what's been discovered by "computability". AG A precise mathematical notion of universality. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee2e1087-327f-495e-9b0d-f192665dff0b%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/A0F06731-04ED-4068-913E-205EB2790415%40ulb.ac.be.
