On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 8:30:16 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 9 Dec 2020, at 20:31, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > > But what is the space of probability? What is Kolmogorov OMEGA? > > There really is no reference to a sample space or space of probability. Bayes' theorem really works when you lack that knowledge. One must invoke prior estimates. This may be refined with each step from the posterior probability outcome in a regression. There is not much reference to some sample space of all possible outcomes. This is basic Bayes' theorem without reference of "Omega," of Chaitin or Kolmogorov-Chaitin theorems
LC > > > > Bayes theorem is really similar to Boolean logic, > > > Assuming Mechanism, none of the modes of self-reference can justify a > classical logic. It works only for the ontology, which is “event free”. > > My feeling is that you are assuming a physical universe, which does not > work (if you are aware of my arguments, I have given references). > > There is no way we can save an ontological physical universe when we > assume mechanism. What would it be? And how could it be able to select a > (relative) computation among all computations? The usual answer to this is > that the “physical reality” makes some computation more real than others, > but then, what in matter is needed and is not Turing emulable, and how to > still answer “yes” to the digitalist doctor, who will not care of that > “matter” per definition of Digital Mechanism? > A Universe still assume some magic, and we can speculate that it exists, > and that mechanism is false, of course. Yet, there a no evidences at all, > when on the contrary, Mechanism got many evidences, from the direct one, > like with genetics, molecular biology, etc, and indirect, like the > many-worlds (or better: the many histories) interpretation of quantum > mechanics, and its formalism, which are quickly retrieved from Mechanism, > where physicists are still unable to provide a comprehensible > interpretation. > > > > > 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. > > > May be, but it cannot work with the Mechanist Assumption. It presupposes > somehow an alethic modal metaphysics (à-la Leibniz, using the modal logic > S5, if you know Modal Logic). But with mechanism, we cannot choose the > Modal Logic we want: they are imposed by incompleteness and its variate > self-reference logics. > > It is like with Jesus. If it was true that Jesus made water into wine, it > would still be better to invoke prestidigitation as the most reasonable > explanation, given the human credulity and the existence of > prestidigitation. Same for a Universe, given the credulity of the universal > number, and their tremendous power of prestidigitation. Universal number > and brains can make a person believe almost anything… > > What many people miss is that the concept of computation is a purely > mathematical, even arithmetical notion. You can define what a computation > is, and prove the existence of all of them, in very simple, but > Turing-complete theory, like those I have given very often here. > > I believe, like everybody, that there is a physical reality, and indeed, > we observe it all the time. But I don’t have to assume its existence. It > follows from some of the self-reference modes of the numbers in arithmetic > (or Turing equivalent). With Mechanism, physics is “ultimately” a branch of > machine biology, psychology, metaphysics and/or theology, all being > branches of elementary arithmetic, once we assume (Digital) Mechanism. > > Physics is the bet tool for making predictions, but it fails to relate > those prediction with our first person experiences. It needs a strong > identity relation between brain and experiences, which is untenable when we > assume that our consciousness is preserved through artificial digital > implant, where we are obliged to derive those prediction from the “natural” > (canonical) statistics inherent to the many-computations reality of any > Turing Universal Machinery. > > Bruno > > > > > > LC > > -- 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/63f4b6ee-0e43-45c2-92bd-461f05826a76n%40googlegroups.com.
