Msg from Bruno
----------------------
Hi Karl,
On 23 Jan 2012, at 14:17, Karl Javorszky wrote:
in the contents - as to what ends cave-dwellers can use natural
numbers, which, after all, they themselves have thought up - we seem
to agree. We can reformulate in our generation's language the same
questions that have been asked since times archaic. If the answers
illuminate new segments of the cave of Platon, doings so annoys the
slumbering and the night fauna, causing unpleasantness all around. One
has accomodated and is used to and comfortable with the play of shadow
and light in the cave. The resistance has natural reasons, and good
arguments, too.
Has our exchange been posted on the fis list? To me it appears not.
Then this would be a sign of the validity of our theory: that
revolutions - big sparks - are not easy to inflame.
My reasoning shows that physics has to be a branch of number
theory/computer science, or of information science (with a large sense
of information). I think it is important. It really shows that
rationalism is upside down since Aristotle.
Some scientist take the existence of a *primitive universe* as a fact,
but already the old Greek Chinese Indian "dream argument" shows that
this not necessarily the case. Science has not yet decided this
difficult question. Nor does physicists use the hypothesis of a
*primary* universe.
The advantage of taking mechanism seriously is that it gives a frame
where you can understand where the physical laws come from, and this in
a testable way. Up to now, it succeeds the test very well. It explains
easily almost all weird aspect of quantum mechanics (indeterminacy, non
locality, non cloning of matter). It explains already some other aspect,
like the highly symmetry of the core of physics, the reversibility of
physical laws). But it still hard to derive Hamiltonian and physical
constant.
I hope this can be read by the FIS people. I can also explain the proof.
It is not very difficult. The most basic discovery is the discovery of
the first person indeterminacy. This shows that from a first person
perspective, you can be duplicated (that is made conceptually possible
when assuming that we are digital machine), each copy inherits one bit
of information, which seems to fall from the sky, but clearly does not.
We will see. If you are interested I explain this on the everything
mailing list, the Fabric of Reality list, a forum of entheogen, and I
have published it also in papers and in a book. Note that I have some
big problem with some academics, but this is due to contingent fact
unrelated to the subject, at least originally.
I certainly lack serious feedback, and I am willing to believe there is
a flaw in the reasoning, but I found it more than 30 years ago, and
nobody seems to be able to find a flaw, even if all this is without
doubt very counter-intuitive for a believer in Aristotle metaphysics.
I defended this as a PhD thesis without problem in France (in 1998). I
am also open that the amount of weirdness might lead to a contradiction,
and this means such reasoning is a beginning of refutation of digital
mechanism, but up to now, we find nothing more weird than what we can
deduce from quantum mechanics without collapse of the wave. Strangeness
is not a contradiction.
Pedro?
Best to all of you,
Bruno
Friendly:
Karl
2012/1/20 Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 19 Jan 2012, at 12:55, Karl Javorszky wrote:
Bruno:
Theories needs theories do be interpreted, except that we must
start from simple agreements, on elementary arithmetic for
example, to exploit that direction.
End Bruno Begin Karl
Also, we need an agreement what to concentrate on while the
communication is made. We have agreed to use elementary
arithmetic as carriers of meaning, because everyone
understands these.
I am glad you say so. It is deep mystery though, but I have never
met people who does not understand natural numbers and the
addition and multiplication laws, and indeed it is what we need to
even say "I don't understand something". As a logician I can
explain, nevertheless, why we can't explain what are numbers from
anything simpler.
Of course I often meet philosophers who pretend, I think, to not
understand them, but they usually put more on them than we need to
do, and confuse the numbers with the human conception of them.
What we keep in our abstract hands is now clear. Now comes the
dynamic part: we sort them and resort them and watch how these
move.
If we had some entrepreneurs here, we could have a nice
graphic drawn: like camels building a caravane, the convoys
moving together. I would like to know how many of the FIS work
in environments, where logistics and housekeeping is of
importance, like a warehouse manager or a HR professional. In
the business life, people do have experience and practice with
flows of mass thru spatially and temporally fixed "points".
The unit of {change | transfer | dynamism} that can be
stipulated over systems of logistics overall can now be
discussed in an abstract fashion, where every word has a clear
meaning. The concept of "goods in transit" can be introduced
by the sorting-resorting method.
There is indeed much darkness in the cave. Maybe some
incendiary comments could set a sparkling discussion and
illuminate a torch in light of which we see the entertaintment
on long evenings among the dwellers: let us think up some
moving objects and move them.
End Karl
I have already tried to make an incendiary comment, but I don't
want insist too much. It requires diplomacy and some human skills,
which I might be lacking.
I am studying the consequence of the hypothesis that the brain
(even in a very weak generalized sense) works like a digital
universal machine, or that my consciousness might be invariant for
some digital self-transformation of my body.
I can argue in detail that this is enough to make wrong the whole
Aristotelian Naturalistic tradition (often believed by Christians
and their atheists variants).
Mechanism, when considered close enough, seems to lead us back to
Platonism, where the physical world is no more what "really
exist", but is an appearance only, like being the border of some
universal mind, which might just be the mind of the universal
machine (in the theoretical computer scientist sense of relative
number).
The proof of this that I provide is constructive. It does not let
any choice on the manner to derive physics from arithmetic and
self-reference logic, and so it makes the mechanist hypothesis
refutable. Indeed this can be done by deriving physics from
number's beliefs (defined axiomatically) and comparing such laws
of physics (observation) with what we infer from empiric observation.
If you are interested I wrote some papers and some of them are
accessible from my URL. Unfortunately I have discovered that some
scientist take as a fact the existence of a *primitive* physical
reality, which I think is erroneous, and comes from a 1500 years
old tradition to put the mind under the rug.
I hope this is "incendiary" enough :). I assure you that it looks
like it might be rather incendiary, at least for some dogmatic
materialist. I am just taking mechanism very seriously, and I show
how mechanism necessarily reduces constructively the mind-body
problem partially into a "belief in a body" problem in pure
arithmetic/mathematical computer science.
Best,
Bruno Marchal
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
[email protected]
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
