Re: (link) uni-verse, multi-verse, etc.

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/22/2017 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The physical reality is what emerges in the limit of a competition 
between infinities of universal numbers operating below our 
substitution level.


But what does that mean?  How do they "compete" and what are they 
competing for.  What does "emerge" mean?


Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Jan 2017, at 04:20, John Clark wrote:




On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker   
wrote:




​> ​You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle  
and Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be  
interpreted as compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early  
Church.


You're probably right I overreacted, it's just that I've had a belly  
full of ancestor worship. However it's true that Aristotle and  
Plato's​ physics was not all the physics that the Greeks had to  
offer, even if it was by far the most​ influential and the only  
type that Bruno talks about.



Because Plato and Aristotle provides the only known conception or  
realities, and ask the first questions. You seems genuinely unable to  
understand that you defend all the time the second God of Aristotle,  
that is materialism, physicalism. So I am forced to recall you that  
other conception exists. And it is a whole rich historical thread  
leading eventually to modern mathematical logic. (The book by Daniel  
J. Cohen is quite revealing in that respect).


Let me simplify. In some platonist circle the believers were the  
believers in physics and nature. The non believers were believing in  
mathematics, and the physical was supposed to be explained by  
mathematics. This worked actually: it *is* the birth of the modern  
science, but instead of promoting mathematics and mathematicalism,  
people came back quickly to the bad habit in believing in some  
ontological physical reality, (the bread of the christ of the  
churches), and forget or hide that science has not yet decided between  
Plato and Aristotle *theology*.


People saying that theology is crap are people saying that we cannot  
doubt Aristotle assumption of a physical reality.


Bruno








John K Clark


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Jan 2017, at 03:05, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 1/21/2017 5:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
​ I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very  
bad joke ​that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing  
for nearly two thousand years. And  ​NOTHING comes from Greek  
theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter.


You shouldn't be so hard on Greek physics.  It's Aristotle and  
Plato's "physics" writings that happened to survive and could be  
interpreted as compatible with Christianity got adopted by the early  
Church.  The school of Thales of Miletus was much better.  His  
followers had a lot of good ideas, and what's more they made  
measurements and observations:


Anaximander speculated that lightning came, not from Zeus, but from  
the collision of clouds. He made a map of the world.  Anaximander  
had a kind of evolutionary theory of the origin of life and of  
mankind.  He maintained that all dying things are returning to the  
element from which they came.   Pythagoras proved that the Earth was  
a spehere by noting that only a sphere could cast a circular shadow  
on the Moon for all alignments of the Sun, Earth, and Moon.   
Aristarchus of Samos put the Sun at the center of the solar system.   
He estimated the distance to the Sun and correctly inferred the  
order of the known planets.  He speculated that the stars were other  
suns that were very far away.  Democritus thought that the world  
consisted of atoms and the void, empty space in which the atoms fall  
down,  but  they didn't fall in perfectly straight lines – because  
then they would never interact.  He supposed that they “swerved”  
slightly at random so they interacted.  They had hooks and loops so  
that they could form combinations and it was different combinations  
that account for the variety we see around us. Eratosthenes of  
Cyrene, a mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music  
theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at  
the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography,  
including the terminology used today.   He introduced the use of  
parallels and meridians on maps.  He's best known as the first  
person to measure the size of the Earth and the tilt of the axis of  
the Earth both to remarkable accuracy.


If these Greeks had their ideas promulgated by the Church, instead  
of Aristotle and Plato's, physics would be 900yrs further advanced  
now.



careful to say Aristotle and Plato, as on theology they are quite  
opposite, and in theology, the early Jews (and Cabbala) like later the  
early muslims around the alevi, bektashi, and around soufism, will  
adopt Plato, or be very open to it.


But you are right, greeks were good in science, and very often some  
best one are obscured by other best one. Sometimes we keep the entire  
work, like with Plotinus, but sometimes we lost the entire work, and  
get summary made by others, like with Moderatus of Gades.


The shame is just that theology, the scientific field, is still not  
back at the academy of science. Theology is just the fundamental  
science by definition, and its main vocation is to refute all positive  
theologies, but then there has been a miracle: the existence of the  
universal machine, which does explains anything, but she too, can  
already refute any normative theory which other machine could try to do.


I might be OK with you about physics being 900years further advanced,  
but the question is: in which theology.Still in Aristotle one, or in  
Plato one? The idea that physics is the fundamental science come from  
Aristotle (despite nuances can be made here 'course). With Plato, the  
necessity of an ontological commitment for a Physical Reality is  
questionned.


Bruno





Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jan 2017, at 01:16, Brent Meeker wrote:

The number machine Nu must be defined by some specific encoding.   
The polynomials depend on X and Nu.  So what is an X and Nu for  
which they have a solution and what enumeration is phi_mu?


The specific encoding is given by the polynomial itself.

It means simply that if you make the number Nu vary on N, you get all  
polynomials enumerating the RE sets. The Nu is variable, and the proof  
that such W_nu will go through all RE sets is by the direct encoding  
on what is needed for that task, using many previous technic.  A  
universal polynomial  is a bit like coding Lisp in Lisp, a universal  
lisp expression.


If you choose Nu = 456, will give the X for which there are a  
solution, and those X are the elements of the 476th recursivley  
enumerable set W_456, in a universal enumeration (has proved by Jones,  
using technic of Robinson and Matiyasevich).


It entails that there is a number Nu such that the set of X is the set  
of prime numbers, that there is a number Nu such that the X is the  
code of the grap of the function sending x on x^x, etc. Indeed, there  
will be an infinitely of number Nu doing that task.


It means also that there is Nu fro which there is no solution at all,  
but the verification of this (which is just by addition,  
multiplication and number comparison) will mimic exactly (that is  
emulate), a Universal dovetailing. But the UD itself will be  
implemented in infinitely many different, all encoded in the universal  
polynomial equation.


Adding computationalism, there is a number Nu such that the set of X  
justifies the existence of the computations supporting the person  
Brent reading the current line, again, there is an infinity of one,  
leading to the arithmetical inflation of histories (but constrained by  
self-reference and its meaning/truth nuances the hypostases) which  
limit the possible use of that inflation to refute computationalism).


The UD is used to formulate the "body" problem, not to solve it, as  
some people misunderstand sometimes. The "solution" is in the self- 
referential "theology" of the universal person.



P.S. I can believe statements are true without believing their  
referents exist: "The Mad Hatter is insane and makes hats" is true.



Yes, me too. That is why I can believe that "I am sending you a mail"  
is true without believing in a "material" mail, notably. What counts  
is not that 2 or 3 exists in any important sense, what counts is that  
2+3=5 is true independently of you and me. That is enough for the web  
of dreams to be realized in arithmetic.  All form of effective  
existence are then given by the internal views of the numbers  
( embedded in relative numbers sequences). Adding a special Reality  
which selects the realities is poor explanation with computationalism,  
and akin as invoking an oracle without evidence, and this before  
testing the observable reality).


Here the TOE is Robinson arithmetic, so s(s(s(s(0 exists just  
because RA proves Ex(x=s(s(s(s(0, but this is unimportant, we can  
use at the bottom any Turing universal machine, in the large but  
precise sense of Church, Turing, etc.


Bruno



Brent




On 1/20/2017 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think you miss the discovery of purely mathematical, even  
arithmetical Turing universal relations. Just for the beauty of it,  
I copy again below a system of diophantine relations which defines  
a Turing universal system.


Bruno

Only bad faith fears reason.
Only bad reasons fear faith.

The Putnam-Davis-Robinson-Matiyasevich-Jones Polynomial equations:

We have that X is in W_Nu, that is  phi_Nu(X) is defined, that is  
the number/machine Nu stops on input data X,  if and only if the  
following system of  polynomial equations ha a solution. It is  
short, and one degree is very high (560), but we can diminish the  
degree to 4, easily, by introducing a lot of other variables  
though. We can also limit the syetm to one equation. From this you  
can conceive that once you believe that 2+2=4 independently of you,  
then such a system polynomial equation has or not solution, but  
this encoded the entire universal dovetailing, including the non  
computable redundancy.


Nu = ((ZUY)2 + U)2 + Y

ELG2 + Al = (B - XY)Q2

Qu = B^(560)

La + Qu4 = 1 + LaB5

Th +  2Z = B5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q16

R = [G + EQ3 + LQ5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB5 + G)4 + LaB5 + +  
LaB^5Q4)Q4](N2 -N)

 + [Q3 -BL + L + ThLaQ3 + (B5 - 2)Q5] (N2 - 1)

P = 2W(S2)(R2)N2

(P2)K2 - K2 + 1 = Ta2

4(c - KSN2)2 + Et = K2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN2 + 1)RSN2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D2 = (A2 - 1)C2 + 1

F2 = (A2 - 1)(I2)C4 + 1

(D + OF)2 = ((A + F2(D2 - A2))2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)2 + 1


*you* emerges from the first person view on all solutions of that  
equations.
The physical reality is given by the competition of infinitely many  
universal numbers operating below your substitution level.
The 

Re: (link) uni-verse, multi-verse, etc.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jan 2017, at 09:29, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/120/the-crisis-of-the-multiverse


It begins to look like an understanding of the computationalist mind- 
body problem (the UD paradox/argument), except it misses  
computationalism, that is Turing, and Gödel, and still use the myth of  
a Universe to restrict the indeterminacy on the unclear ontology.


The physical reality is what emerges in the limit of a competition  
between infinities of universal numbers operating below our  
substitution level.  Above that level what remains locally are  
competition between finitely many universal numbers, like gaz, cells,  
brains, arithmetic, computers and programming languages.


In a sense, the UD is worse than Boltzman brain, but then arithmetic  
justifies the intricacy and structure-full of the possible solution.  
The understandable has a border, and it put some structure on the non  
understandable.


Physicalism remains possible, but at the price of needing to assume  
that consciousness cannot be an invariant of any recursive permutation  
even with oracles. That would appear only as trying to put even more  
away the *person* under the rug.


Is simpler to listen to the (Löbian) universal number, to see that  
there is a person, in a sense close to the analysis of Parmenides,  
taking the first five Parmenides positive hypotheses as the five  
(arithmetical, p is an arbitrary arithmetical senetence, and [] is  
Gödel's beweisbar) hypostases:


 p,
[]p,
[]p & p,
[]p & <>p,
[]p & p & <>p.

That describes 5 fundamental ways the universal number can see itself  
relatively to some universal number chosen, in my case I illustrate  
with three of them: Robinson Arithmetic, SK-combinators, a (precise)  
universal diophantine polynomial equation(s). [] is Gödel's beweisbar  
predicate. It is justified because we limit ourselves on machines  
which would derived correctly their own functioning in case they would  
bet correctly to their substitution level (which no machine can know- 
for-sure). It is "truly" universal, about the way universal numbers  
are related.


It looks already elementary arithmetic defines a universal person lost  
in a highly mathematically structured web of dreams, obeying laws,  
from which we can at least test the physics obtained.


This illustrates at the least that a form of subjectivism (albeit not  
a human one, but a "universal number" one) is empirically testable. It  
generalizes Everett in the sense that it takes all computations into  
account, not just the quantum one, which needs to be retrieved from  
the phenomenal hypostases.


Inflation of possibilities is thread for all kind of modal realism,but  
the other extreme leads to solipsism. Digital Mechanism and computer  
science gives the tool to study a non trvial intermediate between the  
inflation and the collapse of realities.


Bruno








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.