On Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 8:01:30 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 27 Nov 2020, at 15:00, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This is a part of what I said earlier. Think of this with Bayesian > statistics with P(A∩B ) = p(A|B)p(B) = p(B|A)p(A). > > > > What are A and B. What is the probability space? (OMEGA). I am not sure > what are your assumption. It seems that you assume some probability theory. > > > A and B just stand for events or outcomes.
Bayes theorem is really similar to Boolean logic, but where instead of 0 and 1 there are probabilities with a measure in between these two Boolean limits. It really is a generalization of standard logic, and as such embeds the theorems that apply to such. That is a bold unproven statement on my behalf, but it at least makes sense. LC > > > With an excluded middle with A∩B = Ø we can only conclude that p(A|B) = > p(B|A) = 0 and so these correspond to situation with absolutely zero prior > or posterior probabilities. So if some state of affairs is contradictory, > then they have zero probability. > > > With Mechanism, we assume much less than a probability theory, and > eventually, we derive a probability calculus, but this happens only in the > derivation of the physical structure/logic/law from elementary arithmetic, > as we need to do when we assume that consciousness is invariant for a > functional substitution at some level (of description of the body/brain). > > > > > > In quantum logic we can think of this according to destructive > interference, so there are physical states that cannot exist by destructive > interference. > > > That seems interesting, but the quantum structure has to be explained by > the statistics on *all* computations (a very solid concept when we assume > the Church-Turing thesis, which is a very strong hypothesis in math and > philosophy/theology/metaphysics. > > With mechanism, we explain the appearance of a physical reality by a > measure on all computations as seen from inside, which has been the hard > thing to define until I realised that the greeks not only get the > solutions, but actually got the unique set of solutions provided by the > universal+ Turing machine (universal+ = Gödel-Löbian = “believing in enough > induction axioms (like PA)” = "universal and knowing it”. > > The mechanist explanation requires us to NOT invoke any ontological > commitment (neither a personal god, but also no impersonal god or ontology, > except what is needed to define a universal machine, which is only > elementary arithmetic, or Turing equivalent (what I called often “universal > machinery”, which are the enumeration of programs in some universal > programming language, or just the numbers with assiteion and multiplication. > > The advantage is that this gives a theory of qualia and quanta, and thanks > to the quanta, we can compare it with Nature, and thus refute (or just > confirm) Mechanism. We find a quantum structure, and up to now, it fits > with observation, unless we speculate on some wave reduction in nature. > > When we do physics, we can assume, or not, some physical universe. When > doing metaphysics with the scientific method, at some point we have to be > very clear about what is assumed, and what is not assumed and instead > derived. With Mechanism, elementary arithmetic is all what is assumed, > beside the consciousness invariance at the meta-level. > > Bruno > > > > > LC > > On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 4:14:05 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 26 Nov 2020, at 18:57, Mindey I. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Curiously, I found the Everything List, because I wanted to to create a >> "A Universe Where Everything Can Exist" ( https://mindey.com/world.pdf >> ), which the Google search of 2007 returned me to my search query "How to >> create a universe, where everything can exist?” >> >> >> What do you mean? >> >> In such a universe there would be circle with four sides? >> >> The word" thing” needs a presentation or representation in some theory of >> “thing". >> >> I urge people to study a bit of mathematical logic which explains all >> this. >> >> >> >> So, suppose that we create a universe, where everything exists, -- would >> that universe be a superset of all possible universes, or, just the same >> set? >> >> >> >> ”everything” is too much ambiguous without a theory of the things which >> are assumed. >> >> All notions of whole, are limited when made precise enough, or are >> inconsistent. The term “universe” is as bad as the term “god” when used out >> of an hypothetical frame. >> >> Today, we can approximate string notion of everything is classical set >> theory, but like in arithmetic, you will always miss the big whole. The >> collection of all set cannot be a set. The number of numbers cannot be a >> number, the whole physical reality cannot be a physical object … Now, this >> can be doubted if you use a special set theory allowing universal object, >> like Quine's New Foundation, but this does not prevent other type of >> limitations. >> >> 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/6f78bf49-bc21-41fa-8934-77a60f8f455en%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6f78bf49-bc21-41fa-8934-77a60f8f455en%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/4ec78c54-3c22-49b0-9094-ea2c3324d7fdn%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ec78c54-3c22-49b0-9094-ea2c3324d7fdn%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/793f578e-e2ab-4000-a72f-9b51c4648905n%40googlegroups.com.
