My view is that Big BB has a unique viewpoint that crystalizes its view as the Prime Observer, and nudges things from arithmetic into reality. How this hocus pocus occurs (cause and effect) is more than a bit above my consciousness, the specific mechanics of this. With theorists like Sean Carroll, the Boltzmann Brain is a troubling thing, because there would be a plenitude of observers arising like virtual particles (photons) out of the true vacuum flowing. I figured there may in all of these Brahma-cycles (not an Indian motorbike), one grand observer. But, I could be wrong and I am not looking for research funds to prove this theology wrong. Meanwhile here is an ancient magazine article in Discover from years ago, celebrating the Bruno explanation for reality. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/everything-in-the-universe-is-made-of-math-including-you
this includes all Boltzmann Brain, but they have no special role at all, -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Mon, May 24, 2021 4:10 am Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st) On 20 May 2021, at 04:24, [email protected] wrote: Heh! Your dissertation reminded me of a very old Hindu tale of a Sadhu who advised the great Raja about life being nothing but an illusion (maya). They were mounted on an elephant when it bucked them off, and charged them. The Raja said, "Ha! the elephant kicked us off! The Sadhu replied, "that was an illusion your highness." The Raja's eyes narrowed and he said, "Yes, but then the beast charged and you ran from him!" The Sadhu responded, "That too, was an illusion your majesty." For me, I am treating the world as real because it's simpler that way. The physical world? Me to. In fact, mechanism makes the physical world arguably more real than physics. Indeed, physicist extrapolate both its reality and its laws by extrapolation, where mechanism derives it from arithmetic. The reality of the physical reality is never put in doubt. Only the idea that the physical reality is fundamental, i.e. the god (what need to be assumed and is judged to be not explainable by anything else) is put in doubt. The idea of it being all platonic and thus, untestable outside the platonic realm which is everywhere, makes things complex. Complex? I don’t think so. There is only two equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz), which a kid can understand in less than 5 minutes, because (unlike F = ma = GmM/r^2) it is literal K 4 5 = 4 (K is just a projection of a first coordinate, and S is just simple combination). F = ma requires to assume much more, and need a bit of calculus to be exploited. Anyway, My point is that if we want save even just an atom of explanation power in Darwin, we need digital mechanism (implicit in Darwin), and all what I say is derived from mechanism. Any other theory requires to postulate a physical universe (which is what I am skeptical about) and actual infinities in it (and to abandon basically all current science, as for example, quantum mechanics (without collapse) is (up to now) implying mechanism (not just a consequence). And then, with mechanism, we get the first person, consciousness, and the precise and testable relation between Quanta.I derived the necessary many-world aspect of physics from logic and mechanism well before I discover that some physicists were already there. In fact if it is all real as most believe, then that also makes things very complex, but eventually measureable. Mechanism explains why some number are measurable. My whole point is that mechanism is testable, and indeed, quantum mechanics was the prediction, and the confirmation. Again, perhaps wrongly, Bruno, suspect the universe got its start as a one in an Octillion -th, Boltzmann Brain, as opposed lots Boltzmann Brains popping into existence all over the place. Not at all. Reread the derivation. The universe is what emerge from all programs in arithmetic, this includes all Borltzman Brain, but they have no special role at all, and in fact might have no role at all. The physical universe is explained by elementary arithmetic. It is derivable from the general first person indeterminacy, but it appears already in the soul. Quantum logic appears in the three material modes (the knowable, the observable and the sensible). My theory is not “my” theory. My theorem is that it is the theory of all arithmetically sound Turing machine. Again, who knows, but it seems enjoyable and perhaps workable as a premise. The only premise is that we can survive with a digital brain/body. It is Descartes, Darwin. Diderot call this “rationalism” (which makes sense with Occam razor). >From that premise, it is proven that the theory of everything is entirely >given by ANY Turing universal machine + induction (like PA, or combinator + >combinator induction, or by you or anyone: the physical universe is in our >“head", or in the head of any arithmetically sound machine. I found the proof >of the necessity of this, including the many histories, about 45 years ago, >but it took me 30 years to get the theology precise enough to get the >propositional physics, which confirm that physics rise from a quantum logical >algebra arising from the partial computable propositions (the leaves of the >universal dovetailed, aka the sigma_1 arithmetical, or combinatorical reality. >The entire theory is given by Rules: 1) If A = B and A = C, then B = C 2) If A = B then AC = BC 3) If A = B then CA = CB Axioms: 4) KAB = A 5) SABC = AC(BC) But any Turing complete theory would do, so classical logic + 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Works as well and give the same theology, and thus the same physics. Theology and physics appears to be independent of the choice of the theory, as long as it is Turing universal, and has no induction axioms. That one is in the mind of the combinators/machine/words/numbers. There is nothing speculative, as I do not claim that Mechanism is true, just that it leads to many histories obeying quantum logic, and that has been confirmed since, and has to be tested all the time, until it is refuted and we learn something then. Confirmation is not proof, but there are no “proof” concerning any notion of Reality (that is why, by definition, theology is the fundamental science). It is too bad that we tolerate it belonging to people using argument per authority (like in Church, Temple, or anything out of academia). I think that if the very basic element of greek, or machine, theology was taught in school, the religious superstition and fairy tales would be relegated in between the horoscope and the necrology in the Sunday magazine.Unfortunately, about 1/3 of academies are still “pseudo-religious” in the metaphysical domain (with the dogma of matter) and we have rather regressed since my childhood, and now we can see again, with things like scientology, QAnon, … how that lack of rigour is so useful for the manipulators and liars… (that was the goal of taking science (with theology) out of academy Science is born in -500 with Pythagorus and Parmenides, and is dead since Damascius. We will leave the Middle-Age when theology, the non confessional science is back to the academy of science. Note that the Renaissance in Islam in the 12/13th century has been complete, unlike the European Renaissance (brought by the Islam golden age) which is only half-enlightenment, as the fundamental science per definition (theology) has not yet come back to reason, only the natural sciences have been restituted, and the fundamental science remains in the hand of argument by authority, literal reading of sacred text, dogma (matter), etc. Bruno Mitch -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, May 19, 2021 7:18 am Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st) On 7 May 2021, at 02:59, [email protected] wrote: On material versus non-material, Bruno, let us consider how science best functioned over the last 2 centuries, and settle on 2 points that scientists do; observe (detect) and measure. OK I would say that things that are difficult naturally to either detect or measure, we relegate to the 'non-material.' We have trouble seeing something and measuring it (maybe in specific units of measure?), and this it can also be termed Platonic, which is your area of focus. Perhaps, in 100 years, the best scientists in the world will be synthetic and have greater resources available and readily detect and measure things we find very difficult and costly to study today. A Higgs particle, Dark matter, all the fun things need to be measured properly and we likely won't be able to conduct research sitting in earth orbit. Imagine gigantic radio, gamma ray, infrared telescopes hanging at the solar systems edge? Freeman Dyson said that if we want new discoveries we need to invest in better equipment. Until these new observations, I say, Its all Platonic. The antic Dream Argument already shows that no observation at all can confirm an ontological existence. When scientists observe, the bet on measurable numbers, and try to infer mathematical relations between the measurement, and indeed, physics is very impressive in that regard. Now, the metaphysical interpretations are more complex to proceed, and more complex to test. The EPR-Bell-Aspect story does illustrate that metaphysical can points can be tested, and my work similarly shows how to test weak-materialism (Aristotle) versus Pythagorus-Plato, and thanks to Everett sort of physics, a case is made that the empirical observation fits better with “only numbers” than with numbers + some personal or impersonal god, other than the non definable arithmetical reality, which plays the role of a very simple (conceptually) god, but one which restores all the nuance on truth already seen by the antic, and typically discovered by the introspective digital machines. You seem to assume an ontological physical reality, but that cannot work with Mechanism. When doing theology with the scientific method, we cannot appeal to any god in any explanation, not a personal one, nor an impersonal one. That is just not valid, especially without any evidences. We should not confuse the physical evidences for a physical reality (there are tuns of them) with metaphysical evidences for an ontological physical reality, as this is equivalent with Aristotle assumption of the ontological existence of a physical reality. A platonist always assume that he/she might be hallucinating, which is the <>[]f of G* or G1*… Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, May 6, 2021 8:48 am Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st) On 16 Apr 2021, at 04:36, spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]> wrote: Have you considered that you are limiting the capability of the cosmos to change and adapt? … change and adapt to what? With Mechanism, we cannot invoke our personal ontological commitment, especially when doing Metaphysics. No, I agree that there is an apparent cosmos, a persistent illusion, and it might or not be seen as adapting itself to the reality of the number relations. It has not much choice in this “matter”. It may have a feature that may have fooled Turing, until Turing caught on, because given enough time and health, Turing is adaptable too? To be sure Turing was a naturalist. He missed the contradiction with (weak) materialism. But if you meant the Church-Turing thesis; I tend to think that this is a very serious thesis. I would need some solid argument to tell it refuted. Then, Mechanism itself is my working hypothesis, although I can argue that there are many evidence, and none for materialism, like the greek already understood less formally. Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 6:16 am Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st) On 12 Apr 2021, at 04:44, spudboy100 via Everything List <[email protected]> wrote: How about this article and embedded paper, from some physicists employed by Microsoft? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k Basically, that the cosmos is really a self-learning computer is a conclusion that suggests that laws are hard to pin down because the "Operating System," (Blessed, be He-She-It-Them) is always coming up with new understandings? The physical universe cannot be a computer, because that implies Mechanism, but Mechanism makes the physical universe into a non computable statistics on all (relative) computations, which cannot be emulated by any computer. If “I” am a machine, Reality is not Turing emulable, and the physical reality too. We already know that the arithmetical reality is not Turing emulable. In fact, the physical universe cannot be an ontological reality. It is not a thing, but a first person plural experience. (Assuming Descartes + Turing…). Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 11:05 am Subject: The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg) On 2 Apr 2021, at 16:15, Philip Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: [Philip Benjamin] First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses to the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially occultist mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not science, which does not refer to any particular person(s), rather a self-description or a general observation . Paganism is genuinely germane here, since civilized and erudite pagan Augustine’s “instant transformation” pulled the West out from Greco-Roman PAGANISM, philosophies, polytheistic superstitions and “unknown gods” into a path of knowable universe and investigative explorations that finally led to the development of science and technologies which the rest of the pagan world of civilizations and mystic scholarships could not initiate. I use the term “pagan” for “non confessional theology”, and in particular the line: Parmenides, Pythagorus, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, … Damascius … the Universal Turing machine (the indexical digital mechanist one in particular). I take it as a meliorative. I would say that science somehow ended when theology was taken from science to “religious authoritarian institution”, who use wishful demagogic thinking, authoritative arguments and fairy tales, in place of trying to solve problems. The Renaissance, unlike 13th century Islam, was only half enlightenment, as the main and most fundamental science metaphysics/theology/philosophy has been maintained in charlatanism, literature, politics… The WAMP is a stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust, including the Five Day workweek, Sabbaticals, etc. which are uniquely Scriptural and unheard of in other cultures. That is not “white trash” (N/A to Philip Benjamin anyway) as some here label, but a hard historical fact. We might both appreciate St-Augustin, but maybe for the exact opposite reason… (I don’t know). As regards Bruno Marchal’s musings below, some general points need be enumerated.1 . Ones’ worldview is not necessarily science, It is science if the theory is not claimed as true, and is presented in a sufficiently precise way that it is testable/refutable. even if it be based on scientific observations. Bohr’s Taoism or Jungian sorceries are not necessarily sciences. OK. (That can be debated as some of their statements are theorem in the physics derived from the theology (the Solovay G* logic) of the arithmetically sound machines. You might to study some of my papers(*). They are worldviews based on the notions of particle-wave dualism and the BOTH & logical fallacy. Wave- likeness is not waviness. Particles behave like waves which can be described mathematically by via AS IF logic. I do not assume a physical ontological reality, nor do I assume any theory. I do not doubt about the existence of a physical reality, but I do not take it as the fundamental theory a priori.My work shows how to test such ontological existence, and thanks to “Quantum Mechanics without Wave Collapse”, a rather strong case can be made that Nature favours Descartes’ Mechanism (and its immaterialism and non physicalism) instead of Aristotle ’s physicalism/materialism. I can explain that Mechanism and Materialism, widely confused, are in complete opposition to each others, and inconsistent when taken simultaneously. 2 . Bio dark-matter is to astrophysical dark-matter, as bio light-matter (Periodic Table) is to astrophysical light-matter (H & He). One of my goal is to just understand term like “matter” and “physical”, so I avoid to invoke them, before I get enough of them. All I got is a a statistic on relative computational state in arithmetic (in the standard model of arithmetic or in all models of arithmetic: computation is an absolute notion in logic, set theory, etc.) 3 . laws of chemistry are universal. I expect this as a theorem of arithmetic/machine-theology. Chemical bonds are spin-governed particle configurations of duets and octets. 4 . It is more unethical than unscientific to deny chemistry to 95% of unknown matter, but accept that for 5% of the known matter.5 . Bio dark-matter particles of negligible mass with respect to electrons may compose of axions, monopoles and/or neutrinos or something else.6 . There is an “Additional Mass” reported on growth, and the same mass missing on death of organisms grown in hermetically sealed tubes. These experiments are reproducible and there is no legitimate reason why the WAMP do not repeat them for confirmation.7 . There is an increase of biophoton emission rate by an order of magnitude across the taxa (from human cells to plant cells in Petri-dish). Also, the biophoton emission rates increase with stress on the cell growth with a burst of biophotons at cell death. Note: All references to all these experiments have been cited before. My methodology to formulate and solve the mind-body problem makes it impossible to use those 4-> 7 points, unless you show them testable and, either theorem in machine theology, or refuting it. If they are merely consistent, they might belong to geography/history (the contingent first person plural history). You might study my “large public” presentation in Amsterdam in 2004. See blue link below.Since then I do not more mention “arithmetical realism” because it is part of the classical Church-Turing thesis. My work asks for some familiarity with the 1930s discoveries of the logicians: the universal machine, essential incompleteness, non-expressibility of (arithmetical) truth in arithmetic. To be sure Löb’s theorem 1955, and Solovay arithmetical completeness of the modal logic G* in 1976 play an important rôle. By “theology of machine” or “theology of number” I mean mainly the modal logic G1* and its intensional variants. G1 axiomatises completely the provable part of the self-reference logic (By a theorem of Solovay +Visser), and G1* axiomatises the true part (idem). G1 is included in G1*. G1* minus G1, which is not empty (by incompleteness) axiomatises the “surrational” corona in between rational and irrational. The variants of Theaetetus definition of knowledge make sense in this context. The main point is that G* shows them all equivalent (they all “see” the same truth, in fact the sigma_1 truth), but G1 proves none of those equivalence. The self-referentially correct machine believes correctly that they obey very different logics (intuitionist, quantum logic, …). With p sigma_1 we have G* proves p <-> ([]p) <-> ([]p & p) <-> ([]p & <>t) <-> ([]p & <>t & p) But G does not proves any of those equivalence. They all belong in the proper theological part of the theology (which, from the machine perspective transcend its “science” (G)). “[]p” is Gödel’s beweisbar (provable) predicate (<>p is ~[]~p, “~” is the negation), p is an arbitrary partial computable, provable (if true) sentences of arithmetic/computer-science. Bruno (*) Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Plotinus PDF paper with the link: Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf Philip Benjamin From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:45 AM [email protected] Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: PB. From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the moment of conception from bio dark-matter and its chemistries. From a scientific point of view that is a (vague) theory. I will wait for the axioms, and the consequences, and the means of testing. If by Pagan you mean the believer in Matter, you seem doubly Pagan to me, as you assume two sorts of matter. Personally I tend to see (weak) Materialism as a lasting superstition. It will disappear from the natural science, or the science of the observable, like vitalism has disappeared from biology.What what I see are universal machine measuring numbers and inferring all sorts of relation betweens those numbers. And yes, some claim bizarre things about those things not capturable by numbers, and they are correct on this. When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, we can use, today, the tools provided by mathematical logic, to distinguish better the realities (“models” or “interpretations” in the sense of logician) and the theories/machines/words/numbers/finite-thing we are tackling about, and can be talking with, or “in” (standard use). I have no idea of your assumptions, and invoking dark matter is very weird, do you mean a theory with axions? I am not sure anybody have found a theory of Dark Matter, and I am personally skeptical on any ontological matter, as there are no evidence for that (despite Newtonian physics would contradict Mechanism, and be an evidence against mechanism if it were true). Gödel’s theorem protects Mechanism from Diagonalisation à la Lucas-Penrose, and it happens that it protects mechanism from many misuse of quantum mechanics, that it predicts “semantically” and “syntactlcally”, and this without ontological commitment, just the usual simple fact of the type 2+2=4 or KSK = S, ... 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/SA0PR11MB4704AABEF2D5F503B0864548A87A9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com. -- 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/0E379B0D-915A-45D5-A386-A5376D432A0C%40ulb.ac.be. -- 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/1723262815.659496.1618195442271%40mail.yahoo.com. -- 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/92BAA855-52DE-4E7D-8DFC-5AD04E675743%40ulb.ac.be. -- 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/1310136537.2834256.1618540607998%40mail.yahoo.com. -- 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/52692315-7D38-48EB-98BF-C384BD944294%40ulb.ac.be. -- 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/821752515.3439300.1621893384590%40mail.yahoo.com.
