Re: Primary matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/26/2018 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:37, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 6/25/2018 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

This does not mean that a conscious machine is necessarily more efficacious on 
all task,

What is the added undecideable sentence implied by consciousness?

“I am conscious”.


What does that speed up?  Does the speed up from adding an 
undeciable sentence suffer from Goodheart's curse?




Not sure what you mean. I would say “no”, in theory “I am not 
conscious” can also bring a speed-up, despite being obviously 
consistent, like PA with “I am inconsistent”. The speed-up is proved 
by constructive diagonalisation, and is thus non-intuitive, except 
we can imagine than being aware of one’s consciousness might help to 
planning, especially in an environment habited by conscious entities.
Consciousness is *the* speed-up mechanism. It makes us thinking 
using model, semantic, meaning, instead of living the syntactical 
relation at some low level. Meaning is easier than proof, even if it 
can be misleading for individuals, it gives sense to sense, and 
priorities to higher goal, like surviving.


That all sounds like wishful thinking and hand-waving.


Not really. It is complicated theorems.



As I pointed out earlier, if you try to play tennis consciously you 
will lose because you will be slow.


On the contrary, you will be able to move more quickly that the 
adversary, in principle, in the long terms. That is why self-moving 
animals have developed more rapidly communicating cells, to 
anticipate/bet on the local future, without which we would even never 
play tennis.
You might be confusing “being conscious” with “being conscious of 
being conscious”, which indeed would slow down if too much emphasise, 
like the famous millipedes losing its walking ability hen asking 
itself how it use its “thousand” legs.


Which is being conscious of walking, not being conscious of being 
conscious of walking.  Just like being conscious of how to hit the 
tennis ball will ruin you game.  It is necessary when learning to play 
(and you are bad at it).  But Roger Federer never thinks "Now I will 
swing in an upward arc so as to cause top spin."  He thinks, "Hit to the 
left corner."


Brent





Conscious thought no doubt helps in planning, but it also allows 
depression and suicide.  Dogs don't commit suicide.


Some dogs died after having refused to eat anything when their 
master/friend died. I agree it is not yet an intentional suicide, but 
dogs are not that dumb. The more we have neurons, the more stupidities 
we can do. It is the price of a Turing universal local reality, and of 
our own Turing universality.


Bruno




Brent




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.


--
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.



--
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.


--
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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/26/2018 7:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:



Logic, laws, and principles are adopted after the fact to clean up
problems perceived in intuitive inferences; and their solutions
are not always consistent (c.f. Russell's definite descriptions vs
free logics, or Graham Priest defense of para-consistent logics).



But logically impossible things don't happen, and logically necessary 
things do happen.



The only logically impossible event is "X both happened and didn't 
happen."  The only logically necessary event is "X either happened or 
didn't happen."  Logic tells you nothing except what is already in the 
premises.


In this sense, can we not view it as logic being responsible for those 
outcomes (in either preventing or necessitating something else)?





(Perhaps you would call this /Logos/) that is inherent to the
structure of reality. If logic governs the necessity of reality,
and can give rise to it, how do you see logic as isolated from
true statements about arithmetic?


I don't see formal logic as isolated from arithmetic. Informal
logic is more like a theory of physics.  It attempts to capture
and clean up specific areas of discourse but it doesn't
necessarily try to encompass everything.  Just as physics leave
geography alone. Logic doesn't /*govern*/ anything.  It describes
usage of language (generally restricted to declarative sentences)
that preserves "truth" (which formally just a marker).  It has no
more to do with reality than any other application of declarative
sentences.




(I would ask the same question given above)

At the very least, we could use the existence of logical law as part 
of ur explanation, in the same way physicists cite physical laws as 
part of an explanation for why apples fall from trees.


Sure.  We state some premises about mass-energy and metrics and 
force-free geodesics and we can predict where the apple will land. But 
logic and mathematics just bring out what is implicit in those premises.









 1. Hawking: "*What is it that breathes fire into the
equations* and makes a universe for them to
describe? The usual approach of science of
constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the
questions of why there should be a universe for the
model to describe. Why does the universe go to all
the bother of existing?"


"What is there? Everything! So what isn't there?  Nothing!"
 --- Norm Levitt, after Quine


Everything theories can explain away the arbitrariness of
the equations.


On the contrary, they make everything arbitrary.


This is only a problem for those theoretical physicists who still
dream of one day deriving a single unique set of physical laws
(matching our laws) directly from logic/mathematics.


It is a problem for everyday physicists who are interested in why
this rather than that



Ahh. The Wheeler Question.

and don't consider it satisfactory to say it's because this
happened here while that happened in another world where you
couldn't see...just like we predicted.


We may not always get what we want.  Reality may again surprise us 
with its size.


"Only two things are infinite.  The universe and human stupidity. And 
I'm not so sure about the universe."

        --- Albert Einstein




 1. Feynman: "It always bothers me that, according to
the laws as we understand them today, it takes a
computing machine an infinite number of logical
operations to figure out what goes on in no matter
how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny
a region of time. How can all that be going on in
that tiny space? *Why should it take an infinite
amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece
of space/time is going to do?*"



"Because the world is made of physics, not logic."
        - Brent Meeker


That's circular. You're defining physics as something that
inherently should have the appearance of infinities, without
a justification.  I think it is is a mystery in want of an
explanation.


Oh, and mathematics makes it exist is not a mystery?


In terms of providing an explanation from simpler assumptions, it
reduces the mystery, at least on that question.

I'm not defining anything.  I'm just noting that Feynman's
observation, if true, is evidence against computationalism.


Evidence against digital physics, but not against computationalism.


Oh, yes I forgot.  Nothing can count as evidence against
computationalism, it predicts everything and infinitely often.

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:11:29PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
> > ​>​
> > *You deleted my comment that showed the analogy between physical theories
> > and mathematical theories. Why?*
> >
> I really hate the iterated layers of quotations seen on this list that can
> sometimes be 10 layers deep so I always limit my quotations to the specific
> thing I'm commenting on, however I want to keep the peace and therefore I
> will now include your quotation in full even though it is already on the
> list:

Please don't. It is, as you say, bad enough that many people leave
lots of extraneous material in their posts. 


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

​>>​
>> I'll be damned if I understand how all the Diophantine equations in the
>> world put together can store one bit of information, much less a unlimited
>> amount,  you certainly never said how on earth they could do it, and the
>> scientists at Intel can't figure out how to do it either that's why they're
>> still using silicon.
>>
>
> ​>​
> These things take time to understand.  Start with "Meta Math!" by Chaitin:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335
>

I would appreciate it if you'd stop talking down to me, I have seen no
indication you have a deeper understanding of these matters than I do and I
read Gregory Chaitin book in "Meta-Math" in 2006 when it first came out.

​>​
> Do you see any difference between a computation that occurs in another
> physical universe and a computation necessary to get the information about
> the result into your brain?
> What is that difference, fundamentally?
>

The information about the result needs to be communicated to me and if the
computation was done in another physical universe I don't know how to do
that nor do I see the point you were trying to make.
​

> ​>>​
>> If we're talking about consciousness its irrelevant what things are like
>> from a objective viewpoint because subjectively time is the single most
>> important characteristic of existence.
>>
>
> ​>*​*
> *Subjectivity is important and should be explained, but that doesn't make
> the objective irrelevant. *
>

It's irrelevant if the subject under discussion is consciousness and that
is pretty much all that the list wants to talk about.


> ​>*​*
> *If the objective theory says that an objectively timeless structure can
> give rise to a subjectivity that contains the illusion of time, then we
> should not demand an objective theory of reality*
>

Illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon so its no good to
just label something an illusion you've got to explain how the illusion
works the way it does, only after that has been done is there any hope of
discovering anything objective behind it.

​>>​
>> Those equations don't crank out anything unless there is matter to form a
>> crank and energy to turn the crank, otherwise the equations just sit on the
>> printed page inert and dead.
>>
>
> ​>​
> *The equation does nothing, the relation it describes does everything.
> (Just like the physics equations in your text book are ineffectual, what
> matters is the object described by the equations).*
>

​I agree. So what are we arguing about?​


​
>> ​>>​
>> The Deep-Blue equation doesn't crank out anything either unless its put
>> into Deep Blue machine. And even then nothing will happen unless the
>> machine is connected to the electrical power grid.   ​
>>
>>
>
> ​>​
> That step is required if you want to get the solutions into your brain.
>

Then physics is vital for consciousness and can do something mathematics
can not.


> ​> ​
> Its not needed to create the computations, which exist as a fundamental
> feature of reality.
>

If its a fundamental feature of reality then its already right here and
there would be no need to compute it again. And I can explain how matter
can make calculations but nobody around here has provided even a hint of
how pure numbers could do the same thing.

​>​
> *Assume there are two physical, A and B. You and I are in physical reality
> A.  In physical universe B, a computation was run that enumerated every
> possible Deep Blue chess move.*
> *Would you still claim that Deep Blue's computations don't exist anywhere
> in reality, because we in universe A, still need to build a computer to
> access the results of the computations performed in universe B?*
>

​No, but I would say that if ​universe B performed a calculation there must
be matter that obeys the laws of physics. I would also say that for me in
in universe A things would continue just as they always have whether
universe B performed the calculation or not.

​>​
> *What keeps it going?  If computation (as you say) requires energy, what
> is computing the evolution of the physical universe? *
>

​Energy obviously. ​The less energy a physical system has the slower it
evolves, no energy no evolution.

​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: Primary matter

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/26/2018 2:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I don't think that's the case.  C seems to me to be capable to explaining
anything (e.g. we're living in the Matrix).  The theories of M are certainly
incomplete, but if there is empirical data inconsistent with those theories
it just shows they have limited domain. If there is empirical data that is
impossible to include in M how would we know; how could we be sure that it
could not be included?

I don't see how that fact that I am conscious and have a first person
experience of reality could be explained by M.

I suggest you should think about what you accept as good explanations of
other phenomenon.

I gave several examples before, regarding emergentist explanations.

Suppose that Darwinian theory has not been discovered, and we have the
following conversation:

T: Where does life come from?
B: Ah, well, it emerges from chemistry.
T: Fine, how does that work?
B: I told you, it emerges from chemistry. What kind of explanation
were you expecting?


I don't think Darwin had anything to do with discovering the chemical 
basis of life, which I suppose is what you meant put in the future of 
the exchange.




If you take Thomas Kuhn's ideas seriously, then consciousness seems to
be the current sticking point that is likely to trigger the next
paradigm shift. The exercise we've been through is one where you
insist that what Kuhn refers to as "normal science" can eventually
crack the problem, while I insist that it cannot. This sort of thing
happened before, it's not new.


Did Newton explain gravity?  Did Einstein?  Are you satisfied with the 
chemical explanation of life?


I don't think there's anything "normal" or "extra-normal" in science.  
There is good science and better science; and they are measured by how 
comprehensive, accurate, and predictive they are.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

​>>​
>> You could argue that all modern science has done is prove the vacuum is
>> not nothing and although Leibniz was wrong about that the question remains
>> valid, but I would say expecting science to explain how a nothing that is
>> so nothing that it doesn't even have the potential of ever becoming
>> something is unreasonable. Even a omnipotent omniscient God couldn't do
>> that, it would be like asking Him to make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
>>
>
> *​>​This is giving up.  I think we can, and have explained why there is
> something rather than nothing.*
>


That depends on how nothing nothing is. Leibniz would say although there is
still not a definitive answer a enormous amount of progress has been made
in answering that question, but now people say because of that very
progress it doesn't count. If you define nothing as "that which does not
even have the potential of ever becoming something" then the only logical
thing for scientists to do is indeed to give up. And they are not the only
ones, God should give up trying to answer that too. ​


> ​>* ​*
> *Even if no thing existed, there would still be a difference between "1 =
> 0" and "0 = 0".*
>

​One doesn't exist and zero doesn't exist. No difference.​



> ​>​
> There would still be a difference between "7 is composite" and "7 is
> prime", and you can continue this up to far less trivial truths about much
> bigger numbers, such as solutions to the Diophantine equation that
> simulates the time evolution of the Schrodinger equation
>


So now you have an equation simulating an equation that is describing the
probability of a event occurring in the physical world, you are describing
with words a painting of a roulette wheel. Except of course an equation
can't simulate anything, to do that you need a computer made of matter and
energy to run it.

​


>
> ​>​
> *Consider the first person views of conscious gliders in Conway's Game of
> Life.​ ​From their point of view*,
> ​ [...]
>

A Turing Machine can be built from Conway's Life game and gliders would be
a key part of it, but a individual glider has no intelligence and the
chances it is conscious and has a point of view are about the same as the
brain neurotransmitter molecule Acetylcholine  being conscious.


​>*​*
*the evolution of their game moves forward, according to discrete and
simple rules. But they would wonder why. *

​
Physicist in the Life world might discover those rules after years of
effort, and to them that would be a physical discovery not a mathematical
one. And even to us who can see things from the outside of their world that
they can't its still about physics and the movement of electrons through a
machine made of matter.

​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​
>>> *Feynman: "It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we
>>> understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of
>>> logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a
>>> region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that
>>> be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of
>>> logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?"*
>>
>>
>>
>> ​>>​
>> That is exactly why I think the field of Quantum Computers has such
>> enormous potential.
>>
>
> *​>​But can you explain it?*
>

​
If I could I'd be writhing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech right now and
not be farting around on the Everything List.

*​>​Computationalism can, as the infinite set of computations that realize
your mind, all of which exist platonically at a level of finer detail than
is relevant/necessary for the implementation of your mind.*

The infinite set of computations may exist in Plato's heaven, but nearly
all of those computations are wrong and in heaven there is no way to tell
the difference between correct and incorrect. It's like the Jorge Luis
Borges short story "The Library Of Babel", it contains every possible book
of 1000 pages or less all arranged in alphabetical order. The first book is
nothing but a thousand pages of {aa...}, the second book is
identical except that page 1000 ends with {...ab}, the last
book is nothing but {zz...} . The library contains every great
book ever written and every great book that will be written, it contains
every true statement that can be expressed in 1000 pages or less and the
library is totally and completely useless because the vast majority of
books are just gibberish and the vast majority of non-gibberish books are
false and there is no way to tell the true ones from the false and because
of the way the books are arranged there is no way to find a specific book
unless you already know exactly what is in it.


> ​>​
> *Do you think the 10^(10^120)th binary digit of Pi has a definite, but yet
> unknown value?*
>

If the entire universe does not have sufficient computational capacity to
ever calculate it and 

Re: are black holes actually misunderstood wormholes?

[Lawrence Crowell]

I think quantum gravitation theories might be put to some observational 
tests this way.

I would not worry about wormholes and any possible interstellar future. Kip 
Thorne aside, and wormholes are sort of "his second baby" after LIGO, I 
doubt they exist and further even if they existed we would unlikely ever 
enter one. The current trajectory of technology is to find better ways of 
going nowhere ever faster. Notice how people everywhere sit or wander 
around looking at smart phones. I suspect these will communicate directly 
with the brain before terribly long. We are not going into outer-space, but 
more into virtual worlds of inner space. Digitally enhanced mental 
perceptions are coming, and Homo sapiens I suspect will becomes completely 
lost in it. It could be that the majority of people who will ever go into 
outer-space have already done so.

LC


On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 7:44:29 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Thanks for your comments, Sci-fi fans will be disappointed. 
>
> I was intrigued by the mention of these potential echoes contained within 
> the off the scale intense ring down phase of a merger and also by what that 
> would imply, if echoes are actually discovered to exist within the final 
> moments of these extreme events.
>
> Gravitational wave astronomy is in it's infancy and as instruments 
> improve, my hope is that it can help speed forward movement in the quest 
> for a unified theory. After all gravity waves are a direct sensing of the 
> primary evolving dynamics of extreme systems in which our current best 
> theories fall apart and begin spitting out infinities.
>
> Chris
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell
> > wrote:
> My tendency is to say that wormholes do not exist. There are problems with 
> these types of solutions. The biggest is they requires a source term that 
> has negative energy or T^{00} < 0. This would mean the quantum field that 
> defines this source is not bounded below. This means an infinite well 
> spring of radiation can exist. 
>
> These types of spacetimes have other oddities. A wormhole can have one of 
> its openings boosted or accelerated out and then accelerated back so the 
> wormhole has closed timelike curves. This means a quantum state could be 
> sent into the wormhole and it would return prior to then. This means a 
> quantum state is duplicated. This is a non-unitary process forbidden by 
> quantum mechanics. So I see this as another obstruction to the idea of 
> wormholes.
>
> The ring down, and I think as well the peak, of gravitational radiation 
> may carry information about the quantum nature of black holes. Certainly if 
> wormholes collide the quantum information of the wormhole would be 
> contained in these signals or ring down. These types of data will likely 
> require a spacebased system such as e-LISA in order to capture so called 
> gravitational memory. This is where the configuration of test masses is 
> different after the passage of the gravitational wave. The earliest 
> projected launch date ESA will loft this system is 2034. We have a bit of a 
> wait.
>
> LC
>
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 3:01:53 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> As LIGO increases its sensitivity it is entering a domain in which its 
> instruments should be able to detect theorized ring down phase echoes (this 
> is the very last portion of a merging event of massive bodies that produces 
> a rapidly increasing frequency of waves that lead up to the moment of 
> merging, as the two merging objects undergo a final increasingly tight 
> cycle of rapidly narrowing orbits right before merging)  
>
> This increased sensitivity shouldd enable it to discoverif these 
> hypothetical echoes if they actually are being produced by the observed 
> event.
>
> If such echoes are discovered in these signals that would have major 
> implications for cosmology and would be evidence for the actual existence 
> of wormholes in our universe.
>
>  
> Quoting some selected paragraphs, from a Scientific American article: 
>
> "When two wormholes collide, they could produce ripples in space-time 
> that ricochet off themselves. Future instruments could detect these 
> gravitational “echoes,” providing evidence that these hypothetical tunnels 
> through space-time actually exist, a new paper suggests.
> ...
>
> To resolve this so-called black hole information paradox 
> ,
>  
> some physicists have suggested that event horizons don’t exist. Instead of 
> abysses from which nothing can return, black holes actually could be a host 
> of speculative black-hole-like objects that lack event horizons, such as 
> boson stars, gravastars, fuzzballs and even wormholes, which were theorized 
> by Albert Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen decades ago.
> 
>
> In a 2016 study in the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists 
> hypothesized 
> 

Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Jason Resch]

In another thread Brent suggested the "philosopher's nothing" was
incoherent.  I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on
establishing/proving its inconsistency. Thereby proving that something must
exist.  Here is some idea I had:

1. Premise: No thing (nothing) exists.

2. By "1" it follows that "0 things exist" is true.  Further it also
follows that the previously quoted statement must always be true and never
become false, for them something would exist.

3. Since the truth of that statement must always be true true and never
false, (as otherwise "0 things exist" would be violated), then there must
be a permanent and meaningful distinction between "true" and "false".

4. Since "0 things exist" is true, it follows that an infinite number of
trivial statements also follow, such as: "< 1 thing exists", "< 2 things
exist", "< 3 things exist", and these are all true.

5. It also follows that an infinite number of trivially false statements
follow, such as "> 0 things exist", "> 1 things exist", "> 2 things exist".

6. All of these infinite statements must remain true, or else something
would exist.

7. An infinite number slightly less trivial statements must also always
remain true, for nothing to exist:
"(3 - 3) things exist"
"(the number of even primes > 3) things exist"
"(the number of even integer factors of 7) things exist"

8. An infinite number of statements concerning solutions to Diophantine
equations must also be true, and always remain true, for no thing to exist:
"x is even when for integers (x, n), (2*x - n) is the number of things that
exist"
"x is a perfect square when, when for integers (x, n), (x*x - n) is the
number of things that exist"

9. Much more complex Diophantine equations exist, for example, those which
compute any possible computable function, and either have 1 solution if F
halts, or 0 solutions when F does not halt.  Then it follows that when F is
a non-halting program:
"(the number of solutions to the equation given F) things exist"

10. Let's say F is a non-halting program which computes the evolution of
the wave function for our Hubble volume, let's call this equation our world
equation "W". Then it follows that:
"(the number of solutions to W) things exist"

11. If 10 is true, that W is a non-halting program. If W is a non-halting
program, it means that the execution of W goes on forever.

12. If the execution of W goes on forever, then W computes our apparent
universes, including you and me, and other observers who believe in and see
"things".  Thus the original premise that no thing exists is contradicted.

Jason

-- 
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: Primary matter

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:37, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/25/2018 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 Jun 2018, at 08:03, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/22/2018 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> This does not mean that a conscious machine is necessarily more 
>> efficacious on all task,
> What is the added undecideable sentence implied by consciousness?
 “I am conscious”.
>>> 
>>> What does that speed up?  Does the speed up from adding an undeciable 
>>> sentence suffer from Goodheart's curse?
>>> 
>> 
>> Not sure what you mean. I would say “no”, in theory “I am not conscious” can 
>> also bring a speed-up, despite being obviously consistent, like PA with “I 
>> am inconsistent”. The speed-up is proved by constructive diagonalisation, 
>> and is thus non-intuitive, except we can imagine than being aware of one’s 
>> consciousness might help to planning, especially in an environment habited 
>> by conscious entities.
>> Consciousness is *the* speed-up mechanism. It makes us thinking using model, 
>> semantic, meaning, instead of living the syntactical relation at some low 
>> level. Meaning is easier than proof, even if it can be misleading for 
>> individuals, it gives sense to sense, and priorities to higher goal, like 
>> surviving.
> 
> That all sounds like wishful thinking and hand-waving. 

Not really. It is complicated theorems.



> As I pointed out earlier, if you try to play tennis consciously you will lose 
> because you will be slow. 

On the contrary, you will be able to move more quickly that the adversary, in 
principle, in the long terms. That is why self-moving animals have developed 
more rapidly communicating cells, to anticipate/bet on the local future, 
without which we would even never play tennis. 
You might be confusing “being conscious” with “being conscious of being 
conscious”, which indeed would slow down if too much emphasise, like the famous 
millipedes losing its walking ability hen asking itself how it use its 
“thousand” legs.



> Conscious thought no doubt helps in planning, but it also allows depression 
> and suicide.  Dogs don't commit suicide.  

Some dogs died after having refused to eat anything when their master/friend 
died. I agree it is not yet an intentional suicide, but dogs are not that dumb. 
The more we have neurons, the more stupidities we can do. It is the price of a 
Turing universal local reality, and of our own Turing universality.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Primary matter

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Telmo,

I am not sure I commented your first paragraph, which might be a key for trying 
to define what could be an explanation. What would be like a satisfying 
explanation of consciousness, meaning, reality, etc.



> On 20 Jun 2018, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
>>> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves
>>> me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel
>>> stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point.
>> 
>> 
>> We might need to do some detour about what it would mean to explain 
>> consciousness, or matter.
>> I might ask myself if you are not asking too much, perhaps. Eventually, 
>> something has to remain unexplainable for reason of self-consisteny. I 
>> suspect it will be just where our intuition of numbers or combinators, or of 
>> the distinction finite/infinite comes from (assuming mechanism), or just why 
>> we trust the doctor!
> 
> I thought about it for some time. It seems that at a meta level, we
> are always stuck in this situation of "give me one miracle for free
> and everything else becomes explainable". The miracle can be matter,
> or consciousness, or arithmetic. I believe I have to accept this state
> of affairs for the reason of self-consistency that you express above,
> but I'm human and I still feel the curiosity. Epistemic limits are
> hard to accept.


Yes that is hard to accept, but that is why and how the universal machines 
create all the time.

I would not put on the same par complex metaphysical notions like matter (taken 
as primary) or consciousness (that nobody ever agree on a definition) and 
arithmetic, which is taught without problem, and I think, usually well 
understood.

The mathematicians agrees, explicitly sometimes, on the meaning of “and”,and  
“or”, and “if … then”, etc.

To begin an explanation, we have to acknowledge some understanding, without 
which no explanation at all is possible. But that would be like telling to 
Einstein “Look, your theory assumes without much motivation the existence of 
the number 2, your project thesis is rejected”. Only in a theocracy, or 
philocracy or whatever-cracy can we do that. I think that’s why Orwell said 
that freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. The truth tellers get burned alive 
more often than the liars.

For arithmetic, we must not confuse arithmetic (that kids understand very well) 
and “understanding how a machine can understand arithmetic”, still with “doing 
that “truly”, “consciously”" etc.

The beauty and grandiosity of the discovery of the universal machine is that we 
can formulate and solve partial the problem, and this using very classical 
definition, and just arithmetic, or just Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz), or any 
essentially undecidable theory, or sigma_1 complete set of numbers.

Then there is the key point that without assuming one universal machine or 
machinery, you cannot derived the notion from anything simpler. It is an 
important recursive invariant. This includes universal machine + some oracle 
(and the first person indeterminacy do suggest the possibility of oracles, and 
the necessity of the random oracle).

The miracle is not the incompleteness theorem. The miraculous theorem is that 
the machine believing in induction axioms and simple laws can justify their own 
conditional incompleteness theorem, so that they are aware of their 
incompleteness, but not in any assertable way. 

What would be like an explanation of the natural numbers? I have a lot of them: 
you can explain them as n-times iteration function n is lambda f lambda x 
ffx, or you can explain them by the successive applications of 
reflexion and comprehension in set theory, etc. All this *are* interesting 
views of the numbers, but logically they are assuming richer and more complex 
theories (second order arithmetic, analysis, set theory, …).

With mechanism, we need to assume just one universal machine, or one 
recursively equivalent notion, to explain consciousness and its relation with 
the observable, sharable, etc. 

The explanation itself involves machine with rich belief, which believe in 
enough induction axiom to justify their conditional incompleteness, their 
“theology”, and know that they are universal, and the essential limitation, but 
also the trade-offs like between truth and assertability.

It is testable: for example by comparing the quantum logics due to 
self-references and the quantum logics inferred from observation.

Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, <>t -> ~[] <>t,  already illustrates 
that some truth are not provable, nor assertable, nor even assumable, for 
logical reason.  Similarly, the qualia can be explained by immediate 
intensional/modal apprehension (non transitive) that comes from intensional 
variants of G and G*, whose existences are a consequence of incompleteness.

Mechanism circumscribes the mystery in the numbers/combinators, but it explains 
why it has to be a mystery, but it 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> Logic, laws, and principles are adopted after the fact to clean up
> problems perceived in intuitive inferences; and their solutions are not
> always consistent (c.f. Russell's definite descriptions vs free logics, or
> Graham Priest defense of para-consistent logics).
>


But logically impossible things don't happen, and logically necessary
things do happen.
In this sense, can we not view it as logic being responsible for those
outcomes (in either preventing or necessitating something else)?




>
> (Perhaps you would call this *Logos*) that is inherent to the structure
> of reality.  If logic governs the necessity of reality, and can give rise
> to it, how do you see logic as isolated from true statements about
> arithmetic?
>
>
> I don't see formal logic as isolated from arithmetic.  Informal logic is
> more like a theory of physics.  It attempts to capture and clean up
> specific areas of discourse but it doesn't necessarily try to encompass
> everything.  Just as physics leave geography alone.  Logic doesn't
> *govern* anything.  It describes usage of language (generally restricted
> to declarative sentences) that preserves "truth" (which formally just a
> marker).  It has no more to do with reality than any other application of
> declarative sentences.
>
>
> (I would ask the same question given above)

At the very least, we could use the existence of logical law as part of ur
explanation, in the same way physicists cite physical laws as part of an
explanation for why apples fall from trees.



>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Hawking: "*What is it that breathes fire into the equations* and
>>>makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of
>>>constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why 
>>> there
>>>should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go 
>>> to
>>>all the bother of existing?"
>>>
>>> "What is there?  Everything! So what isn't there?  Nothing!"
>>>  --- Norm Levitt, after Quine
>>>
>>
>> Everything theories can explain away the arbitrariness of the equations.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, they make everything arbitrary.
>>
>>
> This is only a problem for those theoretical physicists who still dream of
> one day deriving a single unique set of physical laws (matching our laws)
> directly from logic/mathematics.
>
>
> It is a problem for everyday physicists who are interested in why this
> rather than that
>


Ahh. The Wheeler Question.



> and don't consider it satisfactory to say it's because this happened here
> while that happened in another world where you couldn't see...just like we
> predicted.
>
>
We may not always get what we want.  Reality may again surprise us with its
size.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Feynman: "It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we
>>>understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of
>>>logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a
>>>region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all 
>>> that
>>>be going on in that tiny space? *Why should it take an infinite
>>>amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going 
>>> to
>>>do?*"
>>>
>>>
>>> "Because the world is made of physics, not logic."
>>> - Brent Meeker
>>>
>>
>> That's circular. You're defining physics as something that inherently
>> should have the appearance of infinities, without a justification.  I think
>> it is is a mystery in want of an explanation.
>>
>>
>> Oh, and mathematics makes it exist is not a mystery?
>>
>
> In terms of providing an explanation from simpler assumptions, it reduces
> the mystery, at least on that question.
>
>
>
>> I'm not defining anything.  I'm just noting that Feynman's observation,
>> if true, is evidence against computationalism.
>>
>>
> Evidence against digital physics, but not against computationalism.
>
>
> Oh, yes I forgot.  Nothing can count as evidence against computationalism,
> it predicts everything and infinitely often.
>
>
Many things would count as evidence against computationalism.  But if we
already had observations that ruled it out, we wouldn't be talking about it
as we would abandon it as refuted.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Wheeler: "*Why these equations, and not others?*"
>>>
>>>
>>> "These are the ones we invented to describe what we've seen."
>>> - Vic Stenger
>>>
>>>
>> That's not what Wheeler is asking.  Of course if physics were different,
>> our equations would be too. Wheeler is asking why is physics this way?
>>
>>
>> And Stenger is answering, "Because these equations work and others don't."
>>
>
>
> Work for what?  What makes this set of physical laws one that works (vs.
> some other possible arrangement, which you think does not work)?
>
>
> They work because they predict what happens happens and what doesn't
> happen doesn't happen.  I 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:59 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *​>​Study what diophantine equations are capable of (for example,
>> considers the examples I provided in my original post), and you will see
>> they possess an unlimited working memory.*
>>
>
> I did and I'll be damned if I understand how all the Diophantine equations
> in the world put together can store one bit of information, much less a
> unlimited amount,  you certainly never said how on earth they could do it,
> and the scientists at Intel can't figure out how to do it either that's why
> they're still using silicon.
>

These things take time to understand.  Start with "Meta Math!" by Chaitin:
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335



>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> *I also recommend reading Gregory Chaitin's book*
>>
>
> Gregory Chaitin is on record saying that he doesn't think the Real Numbers
> exist,
>

There are plenty of reasons to doubt real numbers.  But the real numbers
aren't needed for arithmetical computation.


> and his book describes calculations but it can't make calculations any
> better than the books Bruno recommends.
>

Do you see any difference between a computation that occurs in another
physical universe and a computation necessary to get the information about
the result into your brain?
What is that difference, fundamentally?



>
>
> ​> ​
>> Special relativity strongly suggests that our physical existence is
>> similarly timeless, it is unchanging and unchangeable, a static
>> four-dimensional block universe.
>>
>
> If we're talking about consciousness its irrelevant what things are like
> from a objective viewpoint because subjectively time is the single most
> important characteristic of existence.
>

Subjectivity is important and should be explained, but that doesn't make
the objective irrelevant.  If the objective theory says that an objectively
timeless structure can give rise to a subjectivity that contains the
illusion of time, then we should not demand an objective theory of reality
which contains time as an objectively real feature.


>
> *​>​If, as you say, anything goes, why are the only solutions to the
>> Fibonacci yielding Diophantine equation I posted, only crank out the
>> correct answers?*
>>
>
> Those equations don't crank out anything unless there is matter to form a
> crank and energy to turn the crank, otherwise the equations just sit on the
> printed page inert and dead.
>

The equation does nothing, the relation it describes does everything.
(Just like the physics equations in your text book are ineffectual, what
matters is the object described by the equations).



>
> ​>​
>> Why does the Deep-Blue equation, only crank out the correct chess move
>> that Deep Blue would make?
>>
>
> ​The Deep-Blue equation doesn't crank out anything either unless its put
> into Deep Blue machine. And even then nothing will happen unless the
> machine is connected to the electrical power grid.   ​
>
>

That step is required if you want to get the solutions into your brain.
Its not needed to create the computations, which exist as a fundamental
feature of reality.

Assume there are two physical, A and B. You and I are in physical reality
A.  In physical universe B, a computation was run that enumerated every
possible Deep Blue chess move.
Would you still claim that Deep Blue's computations don't exist anywhere in
reality, because we in universe A, still need to build a computer to access
the results of the computations performed in universe B?



>
>
>> ​>​
>> *Recursive functions often have the property of slightly permuting the
>> input with each invocation. *
>>
>
>
> ​And ​
> each invocation
> ​ requires matter and each ​
> invocation
> ​ requires energy.
>
> ​>​
>> John Conway's game of life exists in the world of pure numbers
>>
>
> No it does not. Conway invented the game using hos physical brain. And the
> like pattern remains static unless it's run on a computer or laboriously
> computed by a human and played by hand. Hawking asked "What is it that
> breathes fire into the equations?", the answer is matter and energy.
> ​
>
>
What keeps it going?  If computation (as you say) requires energy, what is
computing the evolution of the physical universe?  Some higher level
universe with a computer in it using electricity?  Where does it stop?

Jason

-- 
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: Primary matter

[Telmo Menezes]

On 25 June 2018 at 19:54, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 6/25/2018 8:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I don't think that's the case.  C seems to me to be capable to explaining
> anything (e.g. we're living in the Matrix).  The theories of M are certainly
> incomplete, but if there is empirical data inconsistent with those theories
> it just shows they have limited domain. If there is empirical data that is
> impossible to include in M how would we know; how could we be sure that it
> could not be included?
>
> I don't see how that fact that I am conscious and have a first person
> experience of reality could be explained by M.
>
> I suggest you should think about what you accept as good explanations of
> other phenomenon.

I gave several examples before, regarding emergentist explanations.

Suppose that Darwinian theory has not been discovered, and we have the
following conversation:

T: Where does life come from?
B: Ah, well, it emerges from chemistry.
T: Fine, how does that work?
B: I told you, it emerges from chemistry. What kind of explanation
were you expecting?

If you take Thomas Kuhn's ideas seriously, then consciousness seems to
be the current sticking point that is likely to trigger the next
paradigm shift. The exercise we've been through is one where you
insist that what Kuhn refers to as "normal science" can eventually
crack the problem, while I insist that it cannot. This sort of thing
happened before, it's not new.

Telmo.

> Brent
> "A good answer is one that doesn't spoil the question."
>  -- P. T. Bridgeport (character in Walt Kelly's "Pogo")
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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.