Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote: 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. Jason, Click on Φ-LISP Φ-DOVE in the volume 4 of Conscience et Mécanisme here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html It is not in FORTRAN, but in LISP. The UD is written in a personal LISP, described itself there too (in Allegro Common Lisp). Sorry for the comments in french, but if you know a few LISP, the code is self-explaining. Examples are given for most subroutines. The whole program makes about 300 lines. Best, Bruno 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: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 17 Jul 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: 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. You don't need the axiom of infinity for axiomatizing the numbers. The axiom of infinity is typical for set theories, not natural number theories. You need it to have OMEGA and others infinite ordinals and cardinals. As finite beings we can hypothesize infinities. Yes, but we don't need this for numbers. On the contrary, the induction axioms are limitation axioms to prevent the rising of infinite numbers. 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. That is provably impossible. No machine can infer numbers from examples, without having them preprogrammed at the start. You need the truth on number to make sense on any inference of any notion. 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. That is the main defect of physics. But things evolve. Without making physics into an axiomatic, the whole intepretation problem of the physical laws will remain sunday philosophy handwaving. Physicists are just very naïve on what can be an interpretation. The reason is they religious view of the universe. They take it for granted, which is problematic, because that is not a scientific attitude. Physicists use mathematics (in preference to other languages) in order to be precise and to avoid self-contradiction. That is the main error of the physicists. They confuse mathematics with a language. Even Einstein was wrong on this. Wheeler, Deutsch and Penrose are already far less wrong on this. Mathematics is independent of language. We can be wrong on this because mathematics is highly dependent on language when we want to *communicate* mathematical facts. Logic can help to make this precise. But when logic is studied superficially, it can aggravate the confusion, due to the role of the formal languages. That doesn't mean that physics is mathematics. A good point. Even with comp, physics is not mathematics, nor is theology pure mathematics. But with comp, math plays a more fundamental role, and in a sense, theology (of a provably correct machine) is a branch of arithmetic. But it happens we cannot know that for ourselves. This is coherent with the fact that the proposition I am conscious cannot be made mathematical. The first person is, from its point of view, beyond math (and physics). That || is fewer than ||| is a fact about the world, ... about reality. OK. The word world is ambiguous. that 57 is a theorem in mathematics which may be interpreted as a description of that fact. I would say that it is a justification, or explanation of that fact. The description is still another thing. But when talking philosophy we should be careful to distinguish facts from descriptions of the facts. And to distinguish description and justification-proof, which can themselves be described, like in logic-metamathematics. but the problem here is that quantum physics assumes real numbers and waves (trigonometrical functions), and that reintroduce the
Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
Bruno: I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran? Ronald On Jul 18, 5:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote: 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. Jason, Click on Φ-LISP Φ-DOVE in the volume 4 of Conscience et Mécanisme here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html It is not in FORTRAN, but in LISP. The UD is written in a personal LISP, described itself there too (in Allegro Common Lisp). Sorry for the comments in french, but if you know a few LISP, the code is self-explaining. Examples are given for most subroutines. The whole program makes about 300 lines. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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
Jason Resch-2 wrote: 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 Yeah, in general I like these concepts (not necessarily the further interpretations of it, eg the claim that everything is illusory that is not pure, unmanifest brahman). -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32083175.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.
On 7/18/2011 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jul 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: 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. You don't need the axiom of infinity for axiomatizing the numbers. The axiom of infinity is typical for set theories, not natural number theories. You need it to have OMEGA and others infinite ordinals and cardinals. As finite beings we can hypothesize infinities. Yes, but we don't need this for numbers. On the contrary, the induction axioms are limitation axioms to prevent the rising of infinite numbers. 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. That is provably impossible. No machine can infer numbers from examples, without having them preprogrammed at the start. You need the truth on number to make sense on any inference of any notion. Nothing can be proven that is not implicit in the axioms and rules of inference. So I doubt the significance of this proven impossibility. 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. That is the main defect of physics. But things evolve. Without making physics into an axiomatic, the whole intepretation problem of the physical laws will remain sunday philosophy handwaving. Physicists are just very naïve on what can be an interpretation. The reason is they religious view of the universe. They take it for granted, which is problematic, because that is not a scientific attitude. Accepting what you can feel and see and test is the antithesis of taking it for granted and the epitome of the scientific attitude. The trouble with axiomatic methods is that they prove what you put into them. They make no provision for what may loosely be called boundary conditions. Physics is successful because it doesn't try to explain everything. Religions fall into dogma because they do. Physicists use mathematics (in preference to other languages) in order to be precise and to avoid self-contradiction. That is the main error of the physicists. They confuse mathematics with a language. And the main error of mathematicians is they confuse proof with truth. 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: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 18 Jul 2011, at 19:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/18/2011 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jul 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: 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. You don't need the axiom of infinity for axiomatizing the numbers. The axiom of infinity is typical for set theories, not natural number theories. You need it to have OMEGA and others infinite ordinals and cardinals. As finite beings we can hypothesize infinities. Yes, but we don't need this for numbers. On the contrary, the induction axioms are limitation axioms to prevent the rising of infinite numbers. 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. That is provably impossible. No machine can infer numbers from examples, without having them preprogrammed at the start. You need the truth on number to make sense on any inference of any notion. Nothing can be proven that is not implicit in the axioms and rules of inference. OK. So I doubt the significance of this proven impossibility. ? It means, contrary of the expectations of the logicist that the natural numbers existence is not implicit in many logical system. We cannot derive them from logic alone, nor from first order theories of the real numbers, nor from most algebra, etc. So, if we want natural numbers in the intended model of the theory, they have to be postulated, implicitly (like in wave theory, set theory) or explicitly, like in RA or PA. 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. That is the main defect of physics. But things evolve. Without making physics into an axiomatic, the whole intepretation problem of the physical laws will remain sunday philosophy handwaving. Physicists are just very naïve on what can be an interpretation. The reason is they religious view of the universe. They take it for granted, which is problematic, because that is not a scientific attitude. Accepting what you can feel and see and test is the antithesis of taking it for granted and the epitome of the scientific attitude. That is Aristotle definition of reality (in modern vocabulary). But the platonist defend the idea that what we feel, see and test, is only number relation, and that the true reality, be it a universe or a god, is what we try to extrapolate. We certainly don't see, feel, or test a *primitive* physical universe. The existence of such a primitive physical reality is a metaphysical proposition. We cannot test that. This follows directly from the dream argument. That is what Plato will try to explain with the cave. The trouble with axiomatic methods is that they prove what you put into them. They make no provision for what may loosely be called boundary conditions. Physics is successful because it doesn't try to explain everything. Religions fall into dogma because they do. I don't criticize physics, but aristotelian physicalism. which is, for many scientists, a sort of dogma. Religion fall into dogma, because humans have perhaps not yet the maturity to be able to doubt on
Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 18.07.2011 14:21 ronaldheld said the following: Bruno: I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran? Ronald Very good book to learn LISP is http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html Just click Next page, read and so on. By the way, List is much nicer than Fortran. I have learned Lisp after Fortran - C - C++ and I should say that I love Lisp (well, I prefer Mathematica - it is a Lisp with a human face). Yet, the real programmer must start with Lisp. If she will be scared by too many brackets, for example (define (fast-expt b n) (cond ((= n 0) 1) ((even? n) (square (fast-expt b (/ n 2 (else (* b (fast-expt b (- n 1)) then she should forget about programming. Evgenii http://blog.rudnyi.ru -- 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.
