On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 2:28:14 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Sep 2019, at 18:42, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:31:02 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> 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]> 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.* >> >> >> 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. >> > > *Your machine can generate other theories, such as one corresponding to > universes which don't obey QM. * > > > The universal dovetailer does not generate theories. It generates all > computations, and the physical universe is the unique structure emerging > from the statistics on all computation. Physics is theory-independent, or > universal-machine-independent. That is why the “TOE” is anything Turing > equivalent to Arithmetic (without induction). Physics is independent of the > phi_i. It is the same for all universal machine. There is only one physics > (with Mechanism). That’s the beauty of it. >
*Does this mean you have given up, or have never endorsed the MW theory? AG * > > > > > *Presumably, all of these are assumed to produce physically appearing > universes. * > > > No. > > > > *I don't see that anything has been proven, or even that any of these > universes must exist just because some axioms are typed by the monkey. * > > > You are right. Monkey's typing does not produce any universe. Study my > papers, perhaps, you would have seen that your monkey does not generate any > universe. A physical universe becomes a first person plural appearance > associated to a unique statistics on all relative computations. A monkey > can only type a texte, and no texte ever produced anything y itself. Don’t > confuse a computation emulated in a reality, and a description of a > computation (in any reality). > > In fact, with Mechanism, it is proven that the physical universe is not > described by *any* computation. Mechanism is at the antipodes of “digital > physics” which is simply inconsistent (Digital physics implies Mechanism, > but Mechanism negates digital Physics, so Digital physics, as a fundamental > theory is self-contradictory). > > > > *And regardless of how you parse words, you cannot compute most irrational > numbers; only a few that have known mathematical expressions like PI and > e. AG* > > > On the contrary. I cannot compute a few non computable real numbers, but I > can generate them all, and that explains why the universal dovetailer > executes all computations with all Turing’s Oracles. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> >> >> >> *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]. >> 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d44c3b79-c88b-4c0d-b7b0-87f5ecbdce59%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d44c3b79-c88b-4c0d-b7b0-87f5ecbdce59%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/87411840-7a03-4972-a81a-8339104dab65%40googlegroups.com.
