Re: What lead to free-will denial?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​Stop trolling.
>>
>>
> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> Stop spouting pompous sounding gibberish.
>
> ​> ​
> Ask question when you do not understand.
>

​I did! I asked :

*​"​did Einstein believe in anything or did he just write symbols on paper
that got published as journal articles? If you think he did believe it I'd
like to know how you determined that, and then I want to know what exactly
Einstein's brain had that the Turing Machine (the one that was doing such a
good job emulating Einstein) lacked."​*

​
And after I asked that very legitimate question the only response I got was
babble about me trolling.
​ ​
And that trolling accusation really pisses me off, as if I had nothing
better to do than write
​posts​
 that I didn't believe
​, as if nobody could sincerely believe ​the stuff you say is wrong.

And when I ask:

*​"​Did ​Giuseppe Peano​ believe in the Peano Postulates, ​or did he just
write symbols on paper that got published as journal articles?​"*

You had no
​ answer to that either and just

​babbled more​
 about
​me ​
trolling.

My dear Bruno it is you that should ask questions when you get confused,
like when you say something you call a "
Löbian machine
​" is fundamentally different from a Turing Machine and then later in a
offhand remark say you could write a
"
Löbian machine
​"
​
​ program on your computer, and say the human brain is
a
"
Löbian machine
​"
​
​ even though
I point out:

​"*if ​*
*a Turing machine can emulate a human brain, and you say*
*​ ​that's a​ ​"Löbian machine​"​,  then in 1935 Turing showed ​exactly
​how to build a​ "​Löbian machine*
​"
​.​


​To that all you can say is it's true but trivial. Imagine that, *TRIVIAL*!​

​You can't admit you're wrong and seem to have no desire to learn. For the
last several posts the only rebuttal I get from you is "trolling" or
"trivial".​

​> ​
> May be try to explain to someone else what is your problem in step 3,
>

​To hell with your silly childish step 3!​

​> ​
> You, and anyone interested in the "mathematical UDA" should
> ​ [...]
>

​I'll tell you what you should do, remember IHA.​


​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.

Re: What lead to free-will denial?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jul 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​Stop trolling.

​Stop spouting pompous sounding gibberish.



Ask question when you do not understand.

May be try to explain to someone else what is your problem in step 3,  
and ask that person to explain the problem.


I do not propose any new theory. I show that the conjunction of the  
metaphysical hypothesis known as physicalism is problematic (to say  
the least) with the assumption that our 1p experience (consciousness)  
is an invariant for some physical digital brain transplant.


We have to extend the view of Everett to arithmetic, and the  
incompleteness phenomenon, and the fact that the "sufficiently rich"  
machine is aware (in some sense) provides the tools for doing that.


You, and anyone interested in the "mathematical UDA" should study the  
relation between the sigma_1 arithmetical sentences and computability  
and/or recursive enumerability. Again, it is standard results, like  
Kleene normal form theorem,  explained in *all* textbooks I mentioned  
before (Cutland, Mendelson, Boolos & Jeffrey, Davis).


But you, sir, seems to have a peculiar agenda.

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: What lead to free-will denial?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> Stop trolling.
>

​Stop spouting pompous sounding gibberish.

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.

Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jul 2017, at 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:


On 7/07/2017 12:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Jul 2017, at 14:22, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 6/07/2017 5:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
And assuming conscious classic digital machines, quantum  
phenomenology
appears at the observed level - a result in line with Bruno  
Marchal's

FPI result.


Prove it. Bruno has failed to do so -- his person duplication  
thought experiments do not reproduce quantum behaviour.


Which one? Z1*, X1*, or S4Grz1? If you know about a physical facts  
contradicting those theories, I would be pleased to know. The  
person duplication experience just shows that physics is given by a  
"sum" on all computations, seen from internal points of view  
imposed by incompleteness, and until now, as modest as the results  
can be, the three propositional physics are still not refuted. I am  
not sure you have studied them, because you have shown not knowing  
the basic theories needed to apprehend them, so it looks you are  
just inventing something here.


The point that I was trying to make to Russell was that since purely  
classical machines can exhibit consciousness means that you cannot  
derive quantum mechanics from consciousness alone.


That depends on your assumptions. If my consciousness, or my 1p  
experience are invariant for a physical digital substitution, in  
virtue of computing, then there is just no choice in the matter.  
Physics (the science of observable prediction) has to be retrieved  
from arithmetical self-reference. Precisely, the logic of "measure  
one" (the yes-no experiments) must be retrieved from two things:


1) the modal arithmetical nuances (brought by incompleteness) of  
Gödel's arithmetical provability predicate ([]p): precisely either []p  
& p, or []p & <>t, or []p & <>t & p.  (by the UDA reasoning).


2) the restriction of the arithmetical realization to the sigma_1  
sentence.(by the UD itself).





And neither does the fact that you might have found a couple of  
objects that do not commute mean that you have derived QM.


I found more than that (a quantum logic) but the points is that this  
is found at the place where UDA justifies that we must find the logic  
of the observable.





Else the person who first noted that rotations in 3 dimensions do  
not commute could be said to have discovered QM!


Which would be ridiculous indeed, but has nothing to do with what I  
have explained we need to do to solve the mind-body problem, or more  
generally the 1p/3p relation problem.


If you want to save both Digital Mechanism (in cognitive science, not  
in physics) and physicalism, you need to explain what a physical  
universe is, and how it can select some subset of the set of all  
computations emulated in (a tiny part) of Arithmetic (the model, not  
any theory). If not, the physicalist misuse the (metaphysical) noyion  
of physical universe in the same manner a creationist use God to  
criticize Evolution.


Bruno





Bruce

--
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.

R: Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

['scerir' via Everything List]

Just 2 (old) references

On quantum-mechanical automata
-David Z. Albert
Physics Letters A
Volume 98, Issues 5–6, 24 October 1983, Pages 249-252
Abstract
An automaton whose states are solutions of quantum-mechanical equations of 
motion is described, and the capacities of such an automaton to “measure” and 
to “know” and to “predict” certain physical properties of the world are 
considered. It is inquired what sort of empirical description such an automaton 
would produce of itself. It turns out that this description would be a very 
novel one, such as was never imagined in conventional theories of measurement.

On quantum-mechanical automata
-Asher Peres
Physics Letters A
Volume 101, Issues 5–6, 2 April 1984, Pages 249-250
Abstract
An automaton which can “measure” or “know” or “predict” the values of physical 
quantities cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

-- 
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.