Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it
On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:20, meekerdb wrote: On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But the problem is not the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences. ?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary? The only evidence for a theory is that it works. No, it does not work. It fails since a long time on the mind-body problem, or it eliminates first person experiences and persons. It assumes also what I am trying to understand, the appearance of matter, and when I say that there are no evidences, I mean it: there are evidences for a physical reality, but *primitive* matter is like ether, phlogiston, or N rays: nobody has been able to provide evidences. It is just a simplifying assumption, and it is not used in any book of physics, even if it is assumed implicitly in some fundamental physics. Don't confuse physics and physicalism. The fact that Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent might be primary are overwhelming. First we don't have arithmetic, computer (the math object) or anything like that without assuming it. Second it is assumed in all pieces of any exact science or human science, then we experience it everyday. We teach it without problem in all schools, etc. It is the only piece of knowledge on which all humans already agree (except a minority of philosophers, but they are easily shown inconsistent). You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn't include a more fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but that would a contradiction. Indeed. I criticize primary physical reality for the same reason that atheists are right when criticizing the use of God as explanation. Primitive matter explains nothing. And then it prevents the search for rational explanations. Whatever the most fundamental model is cannot have a justification showing it is fundamental. That's not correct. Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent theories can explain entirely why we cannot get the axioms from less. You can prove in arithmetic that without the arithmetical axioms you don't get them. You can prove in arithmetic that Pressburger arithmetic (addition, but no multiplication) is decidable and complete (in the Gödel 1930 sense). So you can prove in arithmetic that the fundamental theory is arithmetic or a consistent extension of arithmetic. Then with comp you can prove that we don't need to extend it for the ontology, and that from inside, you need and get *all* consistent exttension, leading to a many-world, or many-dreams, account of what we live. Primitive matter is just a notion extrapolated from quite local perceptions. It is like the earth is flat. It works for architects, but not for sailors and space explorers. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote: On 6/16/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote: Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. Chris Peck is right here. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, Either X or not-X is true? Is it not a matter of intuition? Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist. Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning. Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the axiom, and not in the reasoning. Why not in the rules of inference too? Rejecting non-constructive proofs is a change in reasoning. I don't think there is such a sharp division between axioms and rules of inference as you imply. I did not imply that. In most system, you can always limit the rules of inference by adding axioms. With enough axioms, and the modus ponens rule, you can derive all the other rules of inference. In particular, quantum logic, intuitionist logic and classical logic can be all formalized with only the modus ponens rules, and with the same rules for the quantifiers, just by suppressing some axioms in the Kleene's presentation of classical logic. You get quantum logic by replacing p-(q-p) by (p-q) - (r-t) - (p - q) (limiting the a posteriori-axiom for implicative formula); you get intuitionist logic by abandoning ~~p - p. Bruno Brent Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent reality such that A v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A). If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is no genuine difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an intuitionist should still say no to the doctor, as the FPI is not constructive. Washington V Moscow needs a non-intuitionist OR. Bruno Brent If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
In spacetime (matter) and beyond spacetime (energy)
Hi Since there has been some question from materialists about my use of the phrase beyond spacetime, I thought I would show that this is a perfectly legitimate concept now being investigated by the likes of Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin. Here is a 2011 article discussing phase space, which is another name for one form of beyond spacetime: Beyond space-time: Welcome to phase space http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html#.Ub7EqJy0S-U As I gather, the issue has arisen from: 1) Explorations beyond the spacetime world of Einstein, and 2) The fact if bodies collide inelastically, one has to consider the conservation not just of energy or of momentum, but I believe of their sum. In looking into this, I see that energy, being a scalar, is beyond spacetime, while momentum, a vector, is not. Since I have been referring to mind as being beyond spacetime, perhaps there is a connection between mind and energy. - Roger Clough Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/17/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Consciousness in the Materialist, Computationalist and Leibniz models
On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:31, Roger Clough wrote: Consciousness in the Materialist, Computationalist and Leibniz models This image of a man looking out a window represents the Subject/ Object distinction. public domain 6_.jpg The man represents the subject, which is subjective or inside. Outside of the window is the objective world. 1) In the materialist model of consciousness there is no subject, because nothing is subjective-- everything is material or objective. 2) The computationalist or computer model of consciousness is essentially the same since everything is numbers, which are objects, being objective. So there is no subject and hence no consciousnress. This is not correct. Everything is number, in the ontology, but we assume not just the numbers, but also addition and multiplication, and this is enough to get the dreams and the first person subjectivity, even formally in applying the oldest and best theory of knowledge (the one of Theaetetus). You are confusing Bp and Bp p. It is normal as they are equivalent, but with comp, the equivalence can be seen by God, and not by the finite terrestrial creature. Bruno 3) In the Leibniz model, the window is open so that both inside subject and outside object are subjective. In this case we can have consciousness = subject + object, Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/16/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 17 Jun 2013, at 01:30, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip That people can initiate law is nice, though. I would like to initiate the prohibition of prohibition. Oops :) :-) What is freedom of speech without freedom of thought? When we upload ourselves it will be all the more clear that making certain substances illegal is tantamount to making certain computations (thoughts, ways of thinking, and states of consciousness) illegal. Yes, but we will have to do that. You would certainly not appreciate that I copy you, without noticing to you, and reconstitute you in my super-mac machine, and torture you, without your consent. You will even less appreciate that my lawyer defends me by saying: ---oh but that is just running a computation which in any case already exist in arithmetic. The problem is that by implementing it, I make it relatively normal (in the Gaussian sense) to you, and your suffering will be statistically stable from your point of view. So I think you will agree that some computations, done without consent (but that's part of that computation) will and should be illegal. Freedom of thought and mind do have some limit. Freedom of speech too, like defamation, bullying, all those sort of violence is usually illegal, for not bad reasons, I think. Now, we should not penalize non violent crimes, and as nobody complains about the salvia computation, there should be no reason to make such computation illegal, but again, we cannot dose people, that is, making them live a computation without their consent (which is the main golden rule). For some people salvia is a bit like a torture ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does comp explain interference?
On 17 Jun 2013, at 04:39, Jason Resch wrote: One question that comes to my mind is how computationalism might lead to the phenomenon of interference. How is it that infinite programs going through a state can interfere? Might interference be something local to the geography of this particular universe, or is it something comp predicts to be global for all physics for all observers? That's the most important question, of all. To be sure, even just that is still open. In case interference are not extract from comp, it would mean that the quantum is a geographical phenomenon, or that the SWE is non linear. But the quantum is so deep, and is somehow connected to linearity and symmetries which are even deeper, so that I doubt that physics might be not quantum, and I estimate that comp, and the whole of physics, would lost interest in case that interference feature was not a consequence of comp. But then, eventually, when the math are done, the fact is that we get exactly what we need to have interference, and I hope I will be able to explain enough of this on the FOAR list, soon or a bit later. In a nutshell: Physics = measure on the relative consistent extensions (by UDA), and this is given mainly by the three points of view: Bp p, Bp Dt, Bp Dt p Comp will be translated in arithmetic by the restriction of p to the sigma_1 sentences, then the logic associated to the three hypostases get indeed quantum- like, by having a quantization formula: p - []p, with []p given by the hypostases mentioned just above. You might try to search LASE in the archive, as I have call it here (for Little Abstract Schroedinger Equation). This makes the corresponding logic obeying a quantum logic, and it suggests both the linearity and the symmetries, and ... the existence of interferences. But some work remains to be done to verify this in all details, and to conclude that we have a quantum computer in our comp neighborhoods. There is a work by Rawling and Selesnick which suggest we can extract a quantum NOR from p - []p, but it uses the necessitation rule, and we lost it in comp, so it is not clear how we can use it. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it
On 6/17/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:20, meekerdb wrote: On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But the problem is not the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences. ?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary? The only evidence for a theory is that it works. No, it does not work. It fails since a long time on the mind-body problem, or it eliminates first person experiences and persons. That seems to me just a failure of imagination; like those who said chemistry fails to explain life because chemicals are alive. Yes, chemistry failed for a long time - but then it succeeded. It assumes also what I am trying to understand, the appearance of matter, and when I say that there are no evidences, I mean it: there are evidences for a physical reality, but *primitive* matter is like ether, phlogiston, or N rays: nobody has been able to provide evidences. It is just a simplifying assumption, and it is not used in any book of physics, even if it is assumed implicitly in some fundamental physics. Don't confuse physics and physicalism. I agree that nobody needs to assume matter is primitive - in fact physicists are continually looking for more fundamental stuff which is what led Tegmark to his all mathematical objects idea. But this seems to me just semantics - what do we call the stuff that is fundamental matter, computation, mathematical objects...who cares! All we care about is whether we can fit them into a coherent theory that explains the world. The fact that Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent might be primary are overwhelming. First we don't have arithmetic, computer (the math object) or anything like that without assuming it. Second it is assumed in all pieces of any exact science or human science, then we experience it everyday. We teach it without problem in all schools, etc. It is the only piece of knowledge on which all humans already agree (except a minority of philosophers, but they are easily shown inconsistent). You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn't include a more fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but that would a contradiction. Indeed. I criticize primary physical reality for the same reason that atheists are right when criticizing the use of God as explanation. Primitive matter explains nothing. And then it prevents the search for rational explanations. Whatever the most fundamental model is cannot have a justification showing it is fundamental. That's not correct. Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent theories can explain entirely why we cannot get the axioms from less. You can prove in arithmetic that without the arithmetical axioms you don't get them. But that doesn't prove that they are true, nor does it prove than no other axioms might be true. So how does that prove it's fundamental? Your argument seems circular. You can prove in arithmetic that Pressburger arithmetic (addition, but no multiplication) is decidable and complete (in the Gödel 1930 sense). So you can prove in arithmetic that the fundamental theory is arithmetic or a consistent extension of arithmetic. Then with comp you can prove that we don't need to extend it for the ontology, and that from inside, you need and get *all* consistent exttension, leading to a many-world, or many-dreams, account of what we live. But you don't get all the stuff that physics has explained with the Standard Model and General Relativity. You just *assume* it must be in there somewhere - which doesn't count as explanation in my mind. Brent Primitive matter is just a notion extrapolated from quite local perceptions. It is like the earth is flat. It works for architects, but not for sailors and space explorers. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6417 - Release Date: 06/16/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
