Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 15 Jul 2011, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: Interesting stuff. I had a marathon info download with Stephen and he's helping me access your theory more. Still scratching the surface but at least getting a better idea of how to approach it. What you call UDA I think of as 'Runtime' in comparison to the hardware which I think of as the Singularity. I use axiomatic. I understand a word only if you can related it to something I can understand. Normally, what you say should be word independent. I don't know what you mean by singularity, runtime, etc. In the UDA I use some consensual reality to support an argument, but in fine I isolated an axiomatic theory. You should bet I am 12 years old and explain things with simple terms. The interior of the singularity is the interior of the cosmos with all of the spacetime vacuumed out of it. Spacetime is what exteriorizes the big bang (meaning it's more of a Big Break, where the void of space rushes inward. There is no exterior to the big bang since it prefigures timespace, therefore it can only be conceived of accurately from the interior perspective. explicates matter as volume and the void of time explicates 'energy' (the experience of matter) as sequence-memory. The Singularity then is always happening and never happening, since it is outside timespace, the hub of the wheel of Runtime/UD. The UD is a mathematical being. It is an open question if the apparent physical universe run a UD, without stopping. One has run, in my office, for one week. Such a program is demanding in memory, to say the least. I get what you are saying about Mickey Mouse as far as an Inception/ Matrix/Maya sense of value-weighted coherence within a semiotic frame of reference, although I think there is something good there that you are over looking. Something about the density of the simulated universe which, by definition, can only be realized in comparison to the experience of a denser, more discrete version of the simulation. It's qualia of density/mass but there's something unique - it's the qualia that pretends not to be qualia. I'm not seduced by the promise of the Higgs or Einsteinian curved space (a brilliantly useful metaphor, but the opposite of what is literally true) You talk like if you knew the truth. Are you a sort of guru of what? - more at a concept of Cumulative Entanglement, where the sensotimotive relation of processes separated by space is warped such that scale and density is respected. Motive power is inversely proportionate to the difference in the scale of the two densities, so that it's not gravity exerting a field of force holding you to the ground, it's the magnitude of the Earth, (and the momentum of it's rotation and revolution? or no? Not an astrophysicist, haha) which weakens your motive power to escape becoming part of it. ? So yes, I am certainly willing to entertain comp as far as the cosmos not being a concrete stuff I am agnostic about comp. I just show that comp makes Aristotle's theology wrong. With comp, there is no basic primitive universe that you can relate to consciousness, but the physical reality appearance is explained by a self limitation property of universal machine (again a mathematical, arithmetical notion). but rather principles having an experience of concreteness (by pretending they are the opposite end of what they essentially are - ie chasing their tail, thus becoming existential and completing the sensorimotive circuit of the singularity to become the opposite of the singularity: not just everything and anything, but finite, coherent things which come and go into existence, as well is less coherent non-things that are literally felt out of insistence). ? I don't want to limit comp to numbers though. I see that numbers have an interior topology as well. That's qualia, and that's what numerology tries to tap into. You're right, it is poetry, but that is the interior of the cosmos. It insists. One has a personality. It's the first, the only, the new, the solitary, etc. It's bold yet timid (it's only frame of reference is 0 and 2). Two is a whole emergent identity, coupling, relation, cooperation, equality, inequality, etc. So any definition of comp to me would have to include the qualitative interiority of numbers, the potential feelings, figurative, metaphorical evocations which tie in the echo of the future by subtracting from the singularity interior. Poetry pulls it down from 'heaven'. Happy day-after-the-full moon Bruno. My head is banging on too many cylinders right now but I look forward to continuing this soon. We should trade tips on how to lower the control rods into our own psychic fission pile and turn off the machine. It is very hard to make sense of what you are saying. From my work you can take deduce that you need special non Turing emulable components in some primitive matter (nor even quantum emulable). With comp, on the contrary, we need ,
Re: bruno list
On 15 Jul 2011, at 17:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: Could you define perpendicular topologies? You say you don't study math, so why use mathematical terms (which seems non sensical for a mathematicians, unless you do a notion of set of topologies with some scalar products, but then you should give it. Yeah, I'm not sure if I mean it literally or figuratively. Maybe better to say a pseudo-dualistic, involuted topological continuum? Stephen was filling me in on some of the terminology. I'm looking at a continuum of processes which range from discrete, [dense, public, exterior, generic, a-signifying, literal...at the extreme would be local existential stasis, fixed values, occidentialism (Only Material Matter Matters)] to the compact [diffuse, private, interior, proprietary, signifying, figurative...at the extreme would be non local essential exstasis, orientalism (Anything Can Mean Everything)]. They are perpendicular because it's not as if there is a one to one correspondence between each neuron and a single feeling, feelings are chords of entangled sensorimotive events which extend well beyond the nervous system. Since the duality is polarized in every possible way, I want to make it clear that to us, they appear perfectly opposite in their nature, so I say perpendicular. Topology because it's a continuum with an XY axis (Y being quantitative magnitude of literal scale on the occidental side; size/scale, density, distance, and qualitative magnitude on the oriental side; greatness/significance, intensity, self-referentiality...these aren't an exhaustive list, I'm just throwing out adjectives.). I'm not averse to studying the concepts of mathematics, I'm just limited in how I can make sense of them and how much I want to use them. I'm after more of an F=ma nugget of simplicity than a fully explicated field equation. I want the most elementary possible conception of what the cosmos seems to be. What do you mean by interior of electromagnetism. The subjective correlate of all phenomena which we consider electromagnetic. It could be more of an ontological interiority - throughput.. I'm saying that energy is a flow of experiences contained by the void of energy - and energy, all energy is change or difference in what is sensed or intended. Negentropy. If there is no change in what something experiences, there is no time. So it makes sense that what we observe in the brain as being alterable with electromagnetism translates as changes in sensorimotor experience. Quantum Mechanics is a misinterpretation of atomic quorum sensing. This seems like non sense. Didn't mean to be inflammatory there. What I mean to say is that the popular layman's understanding of QM as how the microcosm works - the Standard Model of literal particles in a vacuum with strange behaviors, is inside out. What we are actually detecting is particulate moods of sensorimotive events shared by our measuring equipment (including ourselves) and the thing that we think is being measured. Time, space, and gravity are void. Their effects are explained by perceptual relativity and sensorimotor electromagnetism. ? Time is just the dialectic of change and the cumulative density of it's own change residue carried forward. Space is just the singularity's way of dividing itself existentially. If you have a universe of one object, there is no space. Space is only the relation of objects to each other. No relation, no space. Perceptual relativity is meta-coherence, how multiple levels and scales of sensorimotor electromagnetic patterns are recapitulated (again cumulative entanglement...retention of pattern through iconicized representation). The speed of light c is not a speed it's a condition of nonlocality or absolute velocity, representing a third state of physical relation as the opposite of both stillness and motion. ? Stillness is a state which appears unchanging from the outside, and from the inside the universe is changing infinitely fast. Motion is the state of change relative to other phenomena, the faster you move the more time slows down for you relative to other index phenomena. c is the state of absolute change - being change+non change itself so that it appears non-local from the outside, ubiquitous and absent, and from the inside the cosmos is still. Any better? No it is worst, I'm afraid. I hope you don't mind when I am being frank. In fundamental matter, you have to explain things from scratch. Nothing can be taken for granted, and you have to put your assumptions on the table, so that we avoid oblique comments and vocabulary dispersion. You say yourself that you don't know if you talk literally or figuratively. That's says it all, I think. You should make a choice, and work from there. Personally, I am a literalist, that is I am applying the scientific method. That is, for the mind-body problem, actually the hard part for scientist, consists in understanding that once we assume the comp hyp,
Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that math is about immaterial relation between non material beings. Could you give me an explanation that 34 is less than 36 by using a physics which does not presuppose implicitly the numbers. || Nice, indeed. We do agree that 34 is less than 36, and what that means. I am not sure your proof is physical thought. Physics has been very useful to convey the idea, and I thank God for not having made my computer crashed when reading your post, but I see you only teleporting information. That fact that you are using the physical reality to convey an idea does not make that idea physical. I was expecting a physical definition of the numbers. By thinking that I can understand your proof, you are presupposing many things, including the numbers, and the way to compare them. So it is a funny answer, which did surprise me, but which avoids the difficulty of defining what (finite) numbers are. It *is* a theorem in logic, that we can't define them univocally in first order logical system. We can define them in second order logic, but this one use the intuition of number. If you agree that physics is well described by QM, an explanation of 34 36 should be a theorem in quantum physics, but the problem here is that quantum physics assumes real numbers and waves (trigonometrical functions), and that reintroduce the numbers at the base. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical realism; I don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2 is still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject that intuits what truth is. This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody else, but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego) necessarily am. My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / I am-ness and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well, expressions of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1 being itself as 2. This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it is. The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is, but never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing itself through explanations. Ben, Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately equal to 1? If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being anywhere (due to their infinite nature). Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The interior of the singularity is the interior of the cosmos with all of the spacetime vacuumed out of it. Spacetime is what exteriorizes the big bang (meaning it's more of a Big Break, where the void of space rushes inward. There is no exterior to the big bang since it prefigures timespace, therefore it can only be conceived of accurately from the interior perspective. explicates matter as volume and the void of time explicates 'energy' (the experience of matter) as sequence-memory. The Singularity then is always happening and never happening, since it is outside timespace, the hub of the wheel of Runtime/UD. The UD is a mathematical being. It is an open question if the apparent physical universe run a UD, without stopping. One has run, in my office, for one week. Such a program is demanding in memory, to say the least. Bruno, Is the source of this program available? I am curious how many lines of (Fortran?) code is was. Thanks, Jason I get what you are saying about Mickey Mouse as far as an Inception/ Matrix/Maya sense of value-weighted coherence within a semiotic frame of reference, although I think there is something good there that you are over looking. Something about the density of the simulated universe which, by definition, can only be realized in comparison to the experience of a denser, more discrete version of the simulation. It's qualia of density/mass but there's something unique - it's the qualia that pretends not to be qualia. I'm not seduced by the promise of the Higgs or Einsteinian curved space (a brilliantly useful metaphor, but the opposite of what is literally true) You talk like if you knew the truth. Are you a sort of guru of what? - more at a concept of Cumulative Entanglement, where the sensotimotive relation of processes separated by space is warped such that scale and density is respected. Motive power is inversely proportionate to the difference in the scale of the two densities, so that it's not gravity exerting a field of force holding you to the ground, it's the magnitude of the Earth, (and the momentum of it's rotation and revolution? or no? Not an astrophysicist, haha) which weakens your motive power to escape becoming part of it. ? So yes, I am certainly willing to entertain comp as far as the cosmos not being a concrete stuff I am agnostic about comp. I just show that comp makes Aristotle's theology wrong. With comp, there is no basic primitive universe that you can relate to consciousness, but the physical reality appearance is explained by a self limitation property of universal machine (again a mathematical, arithmetical notion). but rather principles having an experience of concreteness (by pretending they are the opposite end of what they essentially are - ie chasing their tail, thus becoming existential and completing the sensorimotive circuit of the singularity to become the opposite of the singularity: not just everything and anything, but finite, coherent things which come and go into existence, as well is less coherent non-things that are literally felt out of insistence). ? I don't want to limit comp to numbers though. I see that numbers have an interior topology as well. That's qualia, and that's what numerology tries to tap into. You're right, it is poetry, but that is the interior of the cosmos. It insists. One has a personality. It's the first, the only, the new, the solitary, etc. It's bold yet timid (it's only frame of reference is 0 and 2). Two is a whole emergent identity, coupling, relation, cooperation, equality, inequality, etc. So any definition of comp to me would have to include the qualitative interiority of numbers, the potential feelings, figurative, metaphorical evocations which tie in the echo of the future by subtracting from the singularity interior. Poetry pulls it down from 'heaven'. Happy day-after-the-full moon Bruno. My head is banging on too many cylinders right now but I look forward to continuing this soon. We should trade tips on how to lower the control rods into our own psychic fission pile and turn off the machine. It is very hard to make sense of what you are saying. From my work you can take deduce that you need special non Turing emulable components in some primitive matter (nor even quantum emulable). With comp, on the contrary, we need , more exactly: we can only use, addition and multiplication of natural numbers. The mind will correspond to whatever a universal machine can talk about when introspecting (well defined by Gödel like technics), and matter appearances are retrieved from limiting attribute of such a mind. I do not propose any new theory. I show that all this is unavoidable once we postulate some (rather weak) version of mechanism. Basically, all this made Plato like theology more coherent with the facts and
Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 7/17/2011 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that math is about immaterial relation between non material beings. Could you give me an explanation that 34 is less than 36 by using a physics which does not presuppose implicitly the numbers. || Nice, indeed. We do agree that 34 is less than 36, and what that means. I am not sure your proof is physical thought. Physics has been very useful to convey the idea, and I thank God for not having made my computer crashed when reading your post, but I see you only teleporting information. That fact that you are using the physical reality to convey an idea does not make that idea physical. I was expecting a physical definition of the numbers. Of course there is no physical definition of the numbers because the usual definition includes the axiom of infinity. As finite beings we can hypothesize infinities. By thinking that I can understand your proof, you are presupposing many things, including the numbers, and the way to compare them. On the contrary I think you (and Peano) conceived of numbers by considering such such examples. The examples presuppose very little - probably just the perceptual power the evolution endowed us with. So it is a funny answer, which did surprise me, but which avoids the difficulty of defining what (finite) numbers are. It *is* a theorem in logic, that we can't define them univocally in first order logical system. We can define them in second order logic, but this one use the intuition of number. If you agree that physics is well described by QM, an explanation of 34 36 should be a theorem in quantum physics, I'm sure it is. If you add 34 electrons to 36 positrons you get two positrons left over. Physics is not an axiomatic system. Physicists use mathematics (in preference to other languages) in order to be precise and to avoid self-contradiction. That doesn't mean that physics is mathematics. That || is fewer than ||| is a fact about the world, that 57 is a theorem in mathematics which may be interpreted as a description of that fact. But when talking philosophy we should be careful to distinguish facts from descriptions of the facts. but the problem here is that quantum physics assumes real numbers and waves (trigonometrical functions), and that reintroduce the numbers at the base. If it were an axiomatic system it would have lots of axioms (probably including Peano's) but it isn't. I'm not sure axioms are assumptions though. Brent Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com mailto:benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical realism; I don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2 is still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject that intuits what truth is. This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody else, but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego) necessarily am. My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / I am-ness and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well, expressions of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1 being itself as 2. This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it is. The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is, but never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing itself through explanations. Ben, Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately equal to 1? If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being anywhere (due to their infinite nature). Jason That seems to turn on a certain meaning of grasped. Looking at a finite decimal representation might be one meaning of grasp but it seems like an artificially impoverished one. Pi is the ratio of the length of the circumference to the diameter of a plane circle. is also a finite representation and one that I find easier to grasp than , say, 10^10^100. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical realism; I don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2 is still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject that intuits what truth is. This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody else, but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego) necessarily am. My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / I am-ness and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well, expressions of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1 being itself as 2. This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it is. The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is, but never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing itself through explanations. Ben, Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately equal to 1? If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being anywhere (due to their infinite nature). Jason That seems to turn on a certain meaning of grasped. Looking at a finite decimal representation might be one meaning of grasp but it seems like an artificially impoverished one. Pi is the ratio of the length of the circumference to the diameter of a plane circle. is also a finite representation and one that I find easier to grasp than , say, 10^10^100. For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form, but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this universe. Ben believes mathematical truth only exists in our minds, but does Pi really exist in our minds, or only the notion that it can be derived as the ratio between a plane circle and its diameter? Pi is so big that its digits contain all movies and all books ever created, surely this is not present within our minds, but it is exactly what must exist for e^(2*Pi*i) = 1. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form, but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this universe. You don't know that, since space may well be a continuum (c.f. the recent paper by Feeney et al). Pi is a number, that space may be a continuum doesn't make this number appear anywhere in the universe. We can point to two electrons and say that is an instance of the number 2, but where would we see a physical instance of the number Pi? I didn't say I knew where there was a physical instance - I said you didn't know that there wasn't one. That's fair. Ben believes mathematical truth only exists in our minds, but does Pi really exist in our minds, or only the notion that it can be derived as the ratio between a plane circle and its diameter? But that's the characteristic of mathematics, its statements are notions and notions are things in minds. So there is no difference between the notion of pi existing in our minds and pi really existing in our minds. Is there no difference between the notion of the moon existing in our minds and the moon really existing? We say the moon exists because it has properties which are objectively observable. Mathematics, like physics i a source of objective observations and therefore part of reality. What makes the moon more real than the number 5? If you say it is because the moon is some place we can go to or see with our eyes, then what makes the number 5 less real than the past, or that beyond the cosmological horizon, or other branches of the wave function? One thing that makes them different is that you can know everything there is to know about the number 5 (as a place in the structure of integers), because it is a concept we invented. My question was what makes 5 less real than those other concepts. Also, I would disagree that we know everything there is to know about 5, there are an infinite number of facts about the number five and we do not know all of them. For example, there was a time when humans knew 5 was between 4 and 6, but did not know that 5 is an element of the smallest pythaogream triple. Pi is so big that its digits contain all movies and all books ever created, surely this is not present within our minds, Expressing pi as a sequence of digits is a notion in our minds. That Pi takes an infinite number of bits to describe, and an infinite number of steps to converge upon, is more than a notion in our minds, it is an incontrovertible fact. But that fact is a finite notion. It's a consequence of a non-constructive argument. It sounds as though you are saying I can provide a finite description of how to compute Pi, and thus define it without having to actually execute its infinite steps on a Turing machine. Is this an accurate statement? The sequence is no more in our minds than is 10^10^100. Pi is not special, there are many numbers which exists that are beyond the physics of this universe. I consider this further evidence of mathematical realism. So you simply have adopted a certain Platonic idea of real. Are you saying numbers like 10^10^100 do not exist? Are you a finitist? I think if one is not a finitist, they must a platonist. If you say a Googolplex exists, then where is it? There are not a Googolplex things in this universe to count. Therefore if you think a Googleplex exists, then numbers exist independently of physical things to count. Even if there was a universe with nothing in it at all, the numbers would still exist. So you say. That is the conclusion if you believe 10^10^100 is real. but it is exactly what must exist for e^(2*Pi*i) = 1. I disagree. For Euler's identity to hold just means that if follows logically from some axioms we entertain. There are other ways to prove Euler's identity, but for that equation to be true, those irrational numbers (e and Pi) must be used with infinite precision. Only to check the equation by computing the value on a Turing machine. For the left hand side of the equation to equal 1 and not some other number, the exact values must be used. I don't see how to get around that. The equation doesn't require validation by a Turing machine to be true, any more than a turing machine has to validate 1 + 1 for it to equal 2. True is just a value that is preserved in the logical inference from axioms to theorem. It's not the same as real. True is more than inference from axioms. For example, Godel's theorem is a statement about axiomatic systems, it is not derived from axioms. Objectively true or false statements are properties of objective objects. What leads you
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical realism; I don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2 is still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject that intuits what truth is. This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody else, but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego) necessarily am. My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / I am-ness and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well, expressions of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1 being itself as 2. This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it is. The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is, but never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing itself through explanations. Ben, Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately equal to 1? Yes. Jason Resch-2 wrote: If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being anywhere (due to their infinite nature). I don't believe they exist independently. We don't need to grasp numbers to be the fundament to their existence. We can't grasp ourselves. Yet here we are. So the same goes for numbers. Even 1+1=2 is not graspable, because we can't grasp what 1 is. There are infinitely many possibilities what 1 may be, dependent on various contexts. I don't think anything can fully grasped. The most simple things cannot be grasped because they have infinite contexts (and they cannot be taken out of context, eg a square just exists because there is space that it exists in). The more complex cannot be grasped because of the same reason and because they are... well, to complex to grasp. We can describe / put labels on reality and make good theories, but we can't grasp any part of it in an ultimate way. It all grows and melts as soon as we become aware of it. So, with your argument, everything has independent existence (as a whole). Which actually makes sense, so I am okay with that. I am just opposed to the notion that parts of truth are totally seperate / independent from *each other*. If they were, there would be no truth that connects them, but there is, if it is only the truth that they both exist. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32079632.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical realism; I don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2 is still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject that intuits what truth is. This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody else, but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego) necessarily am. My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / I am-ness and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well, expressions of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1 being itself as 2. This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it is. The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is, but never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing itself through explanations. Ben, Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately equal to 1? Yes. Jason Resch-2 wrote: If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being anywhere (due to their infinite nature). I don't believe they exist independently. We don't need to grasp numbers to be the fundament to their existence. We can't grasp ourselves. Yet here we are. So the same goes for numbers. Even 1+1=2 is not graspable, because we can't grasp what 1 is. There are infinitely many possibilities what 1 may be, dependent on various contexts. I don't think anything can fully grasped. The most simple things cannot be grasped because they have infinite contexts (and they cannot be taken out of context, eg a square just exists because there is space that it exists in). The more complex cannot be grasped because of the same reason and because they are... well, to complex to grasp. We can describe / put labels on reality and make good theories, but we can't grasp any part of it in an ultimate way. It all grows and melts as soon as we become aware of it. So, with your argument, everything has independent existence (as a whole). Which actually makes sense, so I am okay with that. I am just opposed to the notion that parts of truth are totally seperate / independent from *each other*. If they were, there would be no truth that connects them, but there is, if it is only the truth that they both exist. To put it in another way: Consciousness (=God) is everything (and nothing), but it doesn't know and can't know everything, because what it is cannot be completely known, as it is absolutely infinite. God *is* everything, yet infinitely ignorant about everything. Which doesn't mean that nothing is known, just that all knowledge is always incomplete. It doesn't matter what the knowledge is about, since all knowledge is contextual, and the context ultimately is everything. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32079742.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
I don't know what you mean by singularity, runtime, etc. In the UDA I use some consensual reality to support an argument, but in fine I isolated an axiomatic theory. By singularity I mean the sum total of all phenomena minus timespace. The idea of a monad from which all temporal phenomena emerges through a program-like process or 'Runtime', within which spacetime sequences are strictly observed. That's what I thought you meant by UDA - the layer of reality in which we participate where we are limited by the constraints of what kind of a thing we are - what scale, position, how much matter in what kind of arrangement, etc. You talk like if you knew the truth. Are you a sort of guru of what? No, it's just that it gets redundant to constantly use words like 'I think' 'my guess is', etc. I'm just presenting a hypothetical cosmology, so everything I say should be assumed to be my own opinions and ideas. Motive power is inversely proportionate to the difference in the scale of the two densities, so that it's not gravity exerting a field of force holding you to the ground, ? I'm saying that gravity is not a field that physically exists in space, it's more like a function of how matter is organized. I think that gravity may be like a Kryptonite effect which drains the effectiveness of motive force exerted against a greater body. but rather principles having an experience of concreteness (by pretending they are the opposite end of what they essentially are - ie chasing their tail, thus becoming existential and completing the sensorimotive circuit of the singularity to become the opposite of the singularity: not just everything and anything, but finite, coherent things which come and go into existence, as well is less coherent non-things that are literally felt out of insistence). ? I'm describing why I think phenomena come into existence. I'm suggesting that the Singularity is the ground of being, but that it seeks to temporarily be the opposite of itself, and that it does this by dividing itself through the creation of timespace (Runtime) within itself, so that each discrete phenomena has a sensorimotive and an electromagnetic nature. The sensorimotive side is the immaterial side which seeks a circuitous experience of breaking apart from the Singularity, and then returning to it's source, thus giving rise to sequence and the experience of time, which is perception. The electomagnetic side is the container of sensorimotive experience which serves to physically define the relations between the exteriors of phenomena in space. The nature of electromagnetic existence, then, is exterior phenomena coexisting in space, while the sensorimotive experience is an insistence felt from within. When we see a magnet attract an iron filing, we experience it objectively as a iron filings being passively pulled by invisible magnetic waves. What I'm suggesting is that like gravity, magnetism is experienced from within as a powerlessness to escape becoming part of something more powerful. It is very hard to make sense of what you are saying. From my work you can take deduce that you need special non Turing emulable components in some primitive matter (nor even quantum emulable). The only primitive matter would be the Singularity, which would be both primitive and the teleological antithesis of primitive, since it is the container of all spacetime production and not a product of spacetime processes. Craig On Jul 17, 11:38 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical realism; I don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2 is still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject that intuits what truth is. This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody else, but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego) necessarily am. My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / I am-ness and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well, expressions of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1 being itself as 2. This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it is. The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is, but never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing itself through explanations. Ben, Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately equal to 1? Yes. Jason Resch-2 wrote: If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being anywhere (due to their infinite nature). I don't believe they exist independently. We don't need to grasp numbers to be the fundament to their existence. We can't grasp ourselves. Yet here we are. So the same goes for numbers. Even 1+1=2 is not graspable, because we can't grasp what 1 is. There are infinitely many possibilities what 1 may be, dependent on various contexts. I don't think anything can fully grasped. The most simple things cannot be grasped because they have infinite contexts (and they cannot be taken out of context, eg a square just exists because there is space that it exists in). The more complex cannot be grasped because of the same reason and because they are... well, to complex to grasp. We can describe / put labels on reality and make good theories, but we can't grasp any part of it in an ultimate way. It all grows and melts as soon as we become aware of it. So, with your argument, everything has independent existence (as a whole). Which actually makes sense, so I am okay with that. I am just opposed to the notion that parts of truth are totally seperate / independent from *each other*. If they were, there would be no truth that connects them, but there is, if it is only the truth that they both exist. To put it in another way: Consciousness (=God) is everything (and nothing), but it doesn't know and can't know everything, because what it is cannot be completely known, as it is absolutely infinite. God *is* everything, yet infinitely ignorant about everything. Which doesn't mean that nothing is known, just that all knowledge is always incomplete. It doesn't matter what the knowledge is about, since all knowledge is contextual, and the context ultimately is everything. -- Ben, These ideas are reminiscient of the Hindu concept of Parabrahman and Atman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabrahman#Conceptualization http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atman#Advaita_Vedanta The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, so there is no qualitative difference. The Atman or self, he claimed, is indistinguishable from the supreme reality from which it derives. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: bruno list
No it is worst, I'm afraid. I hope you don't mind when I am being frank. In fundamental matter, you have to explain things from scratch. Nothing can be taken for granted, and you have to put your assumptions on the table, so that we avoid oblique comments and vocabulary dispersion. No, I don't mind frankness at all. I'm trying not to assume anything if I can help it. I'm just correlating all common phenomena in the cosmos in a simple form which focuses on their symmetry, and I think accurately explains the relation of consciousness (or meta-perception, which is meta-sensorimotive experience) to electromagnetic patterns in the brain, and by extension, to explain Relativity as the perceptibility of matter in general. You say yourself that you don't know if you talk literally or figuratively. That's says it all, I think. You should make a choice, and work from there. It's not my intention to make a good theory, it's my intention to describe the cosmos as it actually is. The cosmos is both literal and figurative, and I believe it's quality of literalness and figurativeness is part of the same continuum of objectivity- subjectivity, discrete-compact, nihilistic existence-solipsistic essence, etc. I don't know if it's useful to postulate a literal topology when half of the continuum is figurative and experiential. It seems like it would lead to a misunderstanding, but at the same time, I believe that it is perpendicular ontologically just not in the sense that the two topologies could be modeled in space as perpendicular regions. One of the topologies is perpendicular to the idea of space itself. This shows mainly that, with comp, the mind-body problem is two times more complex than what people usually think. Not only we have to explain qualia/consciousness from the number, but we have to explain quanta/matter from the numbers too. I think the mind-body problem is resolved in my topology. It's simple. Qualia and quanta are both elemental intersecting topologies which meet on one end as maximally dimorphic (ie our ordinary, mundane perception of subjective self vs external objects) and on the other end as profoundly indistinguishable (quantum mechanics, shamanism produce logical dualisms, monastic detachment). Qualia scales up as perception, quanta scales up as relativity. They are the same meta organizing principle: sensorimotive electromagnetism squaring itself. Craig On Jul 17, 12:57 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 17:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 7/17/2011 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form, but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this universe. You don't know that, since space may well be a continuum (c.f. the recent paper by Feeney et al). Pi is a number, that space may be a continuum doesn't make this number appear anywhere in the universe. We can point to two electrons and say that is an instance of the number 2, but where would we see a physical instance of the number Pi? I didn't say I knew where there was a physical instance - I said you didn't know that there wasn't one. That's fair. Ben believes mathematical truth only exists in our minds, but does Pi really exist in our minds, or only the notion that it can be derived as the ratio between a plane circle and its diameter? But that's the characteristic of mathematics, its statements are notions and notions are things in minds. So there is no difference between the notion of pi existing in our minds and pi really existing in our minds. Is there no difference between the notion of the moon existing in our minds and the moon really existing? We say the moon exists because it has properties which are objectively observable. Mathematics, like physics i a source of objective observations and therefore part of reality. What makes the moon more real than the number 5? If you say it is because the moon is some place we can go to or see with our eyes, then what makes the number 5 less real than the past, or that beyond the cosmological horizon, or other branches of the wave function? One thing that makes them different is that you can know everything there is to know about the number 5 (as a place in the structure of integers), because it is a concept we invented. My question was what makes 5 less real than those other concepts. Also, I would disagree that we know everything there is to know about 5, there are an infinite number of facts about the number five and we do not know all of them. For example, there was a time when humans knew 5 was between 4 and 6, but did not know that 5 is an element of the smallest pythaogream triple. Of course our present view, since Peano, is that the natural numbers are a structure and so within that context 5 has infinitely many relations. But when you know it is the successor of 4 you in principle know everything there is to know about it. Note that I wrote can know, not does know. Pi is so big that its digits contain all movies and all books ever created, surely this is not present within our minds, Expressing pi as a sequence of digits is a notion in our minds. That Pi takes an infinite number of bits to describe, and an infinite number of steps to converge upon, is more than a notion in our minds, it is an incontrovertible fact. But that fact is a finite notion. It's a consequence of a non-constructive argument. It sounds as though you are saying I can provide a finite description of how to compute Pi, and thus define it without having to actually execute its infinite steps on a Turing machine. Is this an accurate statement? The sequence is no more in our minds than is 10^10^100. Pi is not special, there are many numbers which exists that are beyond the physics of this universe. I consider this further evidence of mathematical realism. So you simply have adopted a certain Platonic idea of real. Are you saying numbers like 10^10^100 do not exist? Are you a finitist? I think if one is not a finitist, they must a platonist. If you say a Googolplex exists, then where is it? There are not a Googolplex things in this universe to count. Therefore if you think a Googleplex exists, then numbers exist independently of physical things to count. Even if there was a universe with nothing in it at all, the numbers would still exist. So you say. That is the conclusion if you believe 10^10^100 is real. but it is exactly what must exist for e^(2*Pi*i) = 1. I disagree. For Euler's identity to hold just means that if follows logically from some axioms we entertain. There are other ways to prove Euler's identity, but for that equation to be true, those irrational numbers (e and Pi) must be used with infinite precision. Only
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 7/17/2011 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form, but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this universe. You don't know that, since space may well be a continuum (c.f. the recent paper by Feeney et al). Pi is a number, that space may be a continuum doesn't make this number appear anywhere in the universe. We can point to two electrons and say that is an instance of the number 2, but where would we see a physical instance of the number Pi? I didn't say I knew where there was a physical instance - I said you didn't know that there wasn't one. That's fair. Ben believes mathematical truth only exists in our minds, but does Pi really exist in our minds, or only the notion that it can be derived as the ratio between a plane circle and its diameter? But that's the characteristic of mathematics, its statements are notions and notions are things in minds. So there is no difference between the notion of pi existing in our minds and pi really existing in our minds. Is there no difference between the notion of the moon existing in our minds and the moon really existing? We say the moon exists because it has properties which are objectively observable. Mathematics, like physics i a source of objective observations and therefore part of reality. What makes the moon more real than the number 5? If you say it is because the moon is some place we can go to or see with our eyes, then what makes the number 5 less real than the past, or that beyond the cosmological horizon, or other branches of the wave function? One thing that makes them different is that you can know everything there is to know about the number 5 (as a place in the structure of integers), because it is a concept we invented. My question was what makes 5 less real than those other concepts. Also, I would disagree that we know everything there is to know about 5, there are an infinite number of facts about the number five and we do not know all of them. For example, there was a time when humans knew 5 was between 4 and 6, but did not know that 5 is an element of the smallest pythaogream triple. Of course our present view, since Peano, is that the natural numbers are a structure and so within that context 5 has infinitely many relations. But when you know it is the successor of 4 you in principle know everything there is to know about it. Note that I wrote can know, not does know. Perhaps having infinite time and resources we could come to know everything about 5, but if you admit the possibility that this universe does not afford us the infinite time and resources necessary to know the infinite set of relations concerning number 5, then the number 5 cannot be fully known (at least by us). What state of existence should we ascribe to these undiscovered, perhaps undiscoverable, properties of 5? If we don't know everything about 5 is it truly our invention or are we just discovering things about it piece by piece? If there is more to know about the number five than there is to know about the observable universe then to what does 5 owe its reality? Five would, in a sense, be larger than the universe, larger than us. It seems arrogant then to believe we are its inventor. Pi is so big that its digits contain all movies and all books ever created, surely this is not present within our minds, Expressing pi as a sequence of digits is a notion in our minds. That Pi takes an infinite number of bits to describe, and an infinite number of steps to converge upon, is more than a notion in our minds, it is an incontrovertible fact. But that fact is a finite notion. It's a consequence of a non-constructive argument. It sounds as though you are saying I can provide a finite description of how to compute Pi, and thus define it without having to actually execute its infinite steps on a Turing machine. Is this an accurate statement? The sequence is no more in our minds than is 10^10^100. Pi is not special, there are many numbers which exists that are beyond the physics of this universe. I consider this further evidence of mathematical realism. So you simply have adopted a certain Platonic idea of real. Are you saying numbers like 10^10^100 do not exist? Are you a finitist? I think if one is not a finitist, they must a platonist. If you say a Googolplex exists, then where is it? There are not a Googolplex things in this universe to count. Therefore if you think a Googleplex exists, then numbers exist independently of physical
