Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/14/2019 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 
least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only mechanism 
and the choice we might make for our substitution level.

But when we build AI's we will know which machine they are.


In theory yes, and we can be sure of its theology if the machine is sensibly 
less complex than us.


I don't understand that.  "We" in the collective sense build lots of 
things that no one of us understands (e.g. Boeing 747), but "we" 
understand it.



But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.


Why not?  It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we 
know...so why would it disbelieve us.



Then in practice, the machine will transform itself very quickly,


Wild speculation.  We don't "transform ourselves very quickly".

Brent


and we will also not known which machine she is, except that we will know some 
bound on its substitution level: by construction indeed. Once as much complex 
than us, even in that case, we will lost the information (except for the 
substitution level again).

All (sound) machine can develop the whole theology of a simpler machine, 
although not algorithmically in the first person modal logic. But the 
propositional theology is just G*, and provably so if we can prove that the 
machine is arithmetically sound (like we tend to believe for machine like PA 
and ZF).

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.


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> > I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter, 
>
>
> Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue 
> doing what it does.
>
> > *because I have never seen any evidence for it. *
>
>
> That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.
>
> > *Matter is like God, *
>
>
> Matter is nothing like God, one is amenable to the scientific method and 
> one is not, that is to say one is bullshit and one is not.
>
> > *in the sense of the greeks*
>
>
> Yes in the sense of the ancient Greeks, in other words in the sense of 
> people with less scientific literacy than a bright fourth grader. Why oh 
> why do you keep talking about those ignoramuses? 
>
> > which means that it is something that we have to explain,
>
>
> And then we have to explain the explanation and then explain the 
> explanation of the explanation and then...
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>

Aristotle  (384–322 B.C.E.):
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.): 
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

Aristotle was a dunce compared to Epicurus. :)

- pt 

-- 
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: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:43, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two recent books:
>>>
>>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>>> Arthur S. Reber
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>>>
>>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>>>
>>> via
>>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>>> Paul Thagard
>>>
>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
>>> machine’s theology.
>>>
>>> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind 
>>> the necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of 
>>> others, to test this later …).
>>>
>>> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” 
>>> belief/anticipation concerning a possible reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>>
>>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and 
>>> eternal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number 
>>> are conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>>>
>>> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
>>> years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
>>> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
>>> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>>>
>>> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which 
>>> does the history selection was there “before”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>>> ago (Reber). 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a 
>>> physical stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many 
>>> universal entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
>>> years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying 
>>> the logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case 
>>> thanks to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p 
>>> and []p & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>>>
>>> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there 
>>> before”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
>>> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
>>> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
>>> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
>>> (grin).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
>>> with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>>> around 560 million years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, 
>>> when they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still 
>>> think that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their 
>>> conception of reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she 
>>> explores and get a surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that 
>>> occurs two times, and the second times she run away!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>>> years ago. [Thagard]
>>>
>>>
>>> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but 
>>> of course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
>>> languages develops … 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
>>> ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>>>
>>> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
>>> stupidity, begin to develop.
>>>
>>> Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each 
>>> other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture 

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:01:26 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 16:12, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>>
>>> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
>>> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some 
>>> of the physicists on here think about this research?
>>>
>>> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
>>> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical 
>>> statistical phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it 
>>> is somehow unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with 
>>> nice garnish for dinner.
>>>
>>> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams 
>>> (aka density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming 
>>> self re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to 
>>> be stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example 
>>> the spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile 
>>> ups with some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic 
>>> jam, except on vastly different scales of course and due to other different 
>>> factors, in the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of 
>>> gravitational inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their 
>>> grand voyages around the galactic core.
>>>
>>> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
>>> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
>>> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
>>> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
>>>
>>> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and 
>>> the seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the article:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/
>>>
>>>
>>  
>> One can (sort of) write all "physics" in a couple of equations: the 
>> Einstein Field Equation (EFE) and the Standard Model Equation (SME):
>>
>> EFE: 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/EinsteinLeiden4.jpg/620px-EinsteinLeiden4.jpg
>> +
>> SME: 
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
>>
>> What caused *this particular arrangement* of expressions in these to be 
>> the "law" of our universe I suppose can be "explained" by it's being one of 
>> any number of possible arrangements.
>>
>>
>>
>> The tiny (sigma_1) arithmetical reality contains all “combinations” of 
>> all programs, and your explanation is a bit like digital physics, where the 
>> physical universe would be one special universal number, say U. That is 
>> possible, but this can explain the origin of the physical laws, in a 
>> coherent way with respect to the mind-body problem (the hard problem of 
>> consciousness) only in presence of an explanation of why that program U is 
>> winning, that is how such U can “multiply” you so much in the relative way 
>> that the laws of physics get stabilised. Arithmetical self-reference 
>> explains consciousness “easily”, but at the price of forcing us to derive 
>> the physical laws from any universal machinery.
>> The physical reality is not a mathematical reality among others, it is 
>> the projective border of the universal mind, which is just the mind of the 
>> universal machine. It is a complex many-dreams structure, and its quantum 
>> aspects explain why negative amplitude of probability can play a role in 
>> making the aberrant histories relatively rare, despite them being also in 
>> that sigma_1 arithmetic.
>>
>> With mechanism, the idea that there is anything more than the sigma_1 
>> arithmetical truth is absolutely undecidable. The sigma_1 truth emulates 
>> the sigma_n believers for all n, and beyond. If the physics which is in the 
>> head of the universal numbers departs too much from what we see, it will be 
>> time to suspect that there is indeed something more. But not only there are 
>> no evidence for that, but there are strong evidence for the completeness of 
>> the sigma_1 truth with respect to the metaphysical questions.
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Whatever brand of scientist - physicist, chemist, biologist, even 
> psychologist - it seems that they see any theory of whatever is within 
> their domain is to be composed of a finite number of sentences (e.g. 
> equations, for physicists). 
>
>
> Yes, like a brain use a finite number of molecules, and mechanism 
> eventually only assumes the finite number 0, s(0), s(s(0)), …, which 
> actually will be used to code the 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter,


Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue
doing what it does.

> *because I have never seen any evidence for it. *


That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.

> *Matter is like God, *


Matter is nothing like God, one is amenable to the scientific method and
one is not, that is to say one is bullshit and one is not.

> *in the sense of the greeks*


Yes in the sense of the ancient Greeks, in other words in the sense of
people with less scientific literacy than a bright fourth grader. Why oh
why do you keep talking about those ignoramuses?

> which means that it is something that we have to explain,


And then we have to explain the explanation and then explain the
explanation of the explanation and then...

 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: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/14/2019 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Don’t hesitate to find some argument in favour of primitive materials, 
but in my opinion, this is highly speculative, and never used in physics.


But the non-material primitive is never used either.  Insofar as I know, 
no scientist ever worries about what is primitive; they only want to 
find a theory that is consilient, broad in scope, and correct in 
predictions.


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: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 14 Feb 2019, at 05:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some of 
> the physicists on here think about this research?
> 
> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical statistical 
> phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it is somehow 
> unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with nice garnish 
> for dinner.
> 
> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups with 
> some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, except 
> on vastly different scales of course and due to other different factors, in 
> the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of gravitational 
> inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their grand voyages 
> around the galactic core.
> 
> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
> 
> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and the 
> seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
> 
> Here is the link to the article:


It does not give enough explanation. From what I see there, this has already 
been found by Paulette Destouches-Février in the 1950s. I don’t see if it is 
really different from Graham, or Preskill, and of course, it still assume the 
quantum, which is better to avoid when using (even implicitly) mechanism, at 
least if the goal is some conceptual understanding. I will reread and search 
for more explanation. If you find the paper convincing or really original, 
don’t hesitate to try to make it clearer for others. The fact that P = A^2 is 
the only solution for probability +total indetermination does not explain how 
to provide a realist account of the measurement.

Bruno




> 
> 
> 
> The Born Rule Has Been Derived From Simple Physical Principles | Quanta 
> Magazine 
> 
> 
> The Born Rule Has Been Derived From Simple Physical Principles | Quanta 
> Magazine
> The new work promises to give researchers a better grip on the core mystery 
> of 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 
> .

-- 
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: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:43, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two recent books:
>>> 
>>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>>> Arthur S. Reber
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> via
>>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
>> machine’s theology.
>> 
>> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind the 
>> necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of others, to 
>> test this later …).
>> 
>> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” belief/anticipation 
>> concerning a possible reality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>> 
>>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>> 
>> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number are 
>> conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>> 
>> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
>>> ago. 
>> 
>> 
>> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
>> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
>> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>> 
>> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which does 
>> the history selection was there “before”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>>> ago (Reber). 
>> 
>> 
>> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
>> stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
>> entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
>>> ago. 
>> 
>> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying the 
>> logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case thanks 
>> to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p and []p 
>> & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>> 
>> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there before”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>> 
>> 
>> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
>> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
>> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
>> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
>> (grin).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>>> around 560 million years ago. 
>> 
>> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when 
>> they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think 
>> that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of 
>> reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a 
>> surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, 
>> and the second times she run away!
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>>> years ago. [Thagard]
>> 
>> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but of 
>> course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
>> languages develops … 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>> 
>> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>> 
>> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
>> stupidity, begin to develop.
>> 
>> 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 
>> least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
>> combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only 
>> mechanism and the choice we might make for our substitution level.
> 
> But when we build AI's we will know which machine they are.
> 

In theory yes, and we can be sure of its theology if the machine is sensibly 
less complex than us. But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand 
this. Then in practice, the machine will transform itself very quickly, and we 
will also not known which machine she is, except that we will know some bound 
on its substitution level: by construction indeed. Once as much complex than 
us, even in that case, we will lost the information (except for the 
substitution level again).

All (sound) machine can develop the whole theology of a simpler machine, 
although not algorithmically in the first person modal logic. But the 
propositional theology is just G*, and provably so if we can prove that the 
machine is arithmetically sound (like we tend to believe for machine like PA 
and ZF).

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.


Re: Algorithm splitting as reason for Quantum Collapse

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 13 Feb 2019, at 19:51, James Coons  wrote:
> 
> If we are algorithms executed by duplicated brains in a multiverse, is it 
> possible that algorithm splitting is the reason for quantum mechanics.

Yes, that is the basic intuition of why we have to extract physics from 
arithmetic, and eventually on how to do the derivation. If we are implemented 
by programs, then all the infinitely many computations realising us are 
executed in arithmetic (or in any Turing complete) theory, and physics is what 
emerge from the statistical interference of all computations defined below our 
mechanist substitution level.
Then, the mathematics of self-reprdocution and self-reference do the rest.





> It seems like a simple explaination. If so then quantum interference takes 
> place within a duplicated algorithm. Does this make any sense?

That makes perfect sense. I work on this since 40 years. It makes materialist 
believer nervous, though, because eventually it refutes physicalism. Physics 
becomes the science of digital machine prediction in arithmetic. Advantage: 
incompleteness not only enforces the theory of quanta, but extend it into a 
more general theory of qualia, explaining why the physical (but also the 
theological and the psychological) divides into sharable and non sharable part. 
It shows a relation between consciousness and the quantum, but it is the 
reverse of the most usual “theories”. The quantum appearances are explained by 
“classical mechanism” and “classical” computer science. Theologically, if we 
assume digital mechanism in the cognitive science, we have to abandon 
Aristotle’s materialist Metaphysics, and go back to Plato, even to the 
neoplatonist’s reconstruction of Aristotle theory of matter, where matter is 
almost defined by where god lose control, that is, where God itself can no more 
do any prediction, like with the self-duplication.

You can see an introduction and summary in my sane04 paper, which sum up my PhD 
thesis:
B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
(sane04)

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.

-- 
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: modal µ-calculus and Gödel-Löb logic

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 15 Feb 2019, at 16:01, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> (connecting a programming semantics with a provability logic)
> 
> On Modal µ-Calculus and Gödel-Löb Logic
> https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00353743/document

Interesting new proof of the fixed point theorem in G. Yes, quite interesting.

(A bit highly technical, but should be comprehensible by those who have 
followed some technical posts I made, notably on model logic and G/G*, and have 
read the Mendelson or Boolos).

Not sure if this extends, and how, on G*. Makes me think …

Thanks,

Bruno





> 
> μ-calculus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_%CE%BC-calculus
> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 15 Feb 2019, at 16:12, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
>> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some 
>> of the physicists on here think about this research?
>> 
>> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
>> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical statistical 
>> phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it is somehow 
>> unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with nice garnish 
>> for dinner.
>> 
>> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
>> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
>> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
>> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
>> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups 
>> with some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, 
>> except on vastly different scales of course and due to other different 
>> factors, in the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of 
>> gravitational inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their 
>> grand voyages around the galactic core.
>> 
>> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
>> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
>> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
>> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
>> 
>> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and the 
>> seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
>> 
>> Here is the link to the article:
>> 
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> One can (sort of) write all "physics" in a couple of equations: the Einstein 
>> Field Equation (EFE) and the Standard Model Equation (SME):
>> 
>> EFE: 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/EinsteinLeiden4.jpg/620px-EinsteinLeiden4.jpg
>>  
>> 
>> +
>> SME: 
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png 
>> 
>> 
>> What caused this particular arrangement of expressions in these to be the 
>> "law" of our universe I suppose can be "explained" by it's being one of any 
>> number of possible arrangements.
> 
> 
> The tiny (sigma_1) arithmetical reality contains all “combinations” of all 
> programs, and your explanation is a bit like digital physics, where the 
> physical universe would be one special universal number, say U. That is 
> possible, but this can explain the origin of the physical laws, in a coherent 
> way with respect to the mind-body problem (the hard problem of consciousness) 
> only in presence of an explanation of why that program U is winning, that is 
> how such U can “multiply” you so much in the relative way that the laws of 
> physics get stabilised. Arithmetical self-reference explains consciousness 
> “easily”, but at the price of forcing us to derive the physical laws from any 
> universal machinery.
> The physical reality is not a mathematical reality among others, it is the 
> projective border of the universal mind, which is just the mind of the 
> universal machine. It is a complex many-dreams structure, and its quantum 
> aspects explain why negative amplitude of probability can play a role in 
> making the aberrant histories relatively rare, despite them being also in 
> that sigma_1 arithmetic.
> 
> With mechanism, the idea that there is anything more than the sigma_1 
> arithmetical truth is absolutely undecidable. The sigma_1 truth emulates the 
> sigma_n believers for all n, and beyond. If the physics which is in the head 
> of the universal numbers departs too much from what we see, it will be time 
> to suspect that there is indeed something more. But not only there are no 
> evidence for that, but there are strong evidence for the completeness of the 
> sigma_1 truth with respect to the metaphysical questions.
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever brand of scientist - physicist, chemist, biologist, even 
> psychologist - it seems that they see any theory of whatever is within their 
> domain is to be composed of a finite number of sentences (e.g. equations, for 
> physicists). 


Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
>> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some 
>> of the physicists on here think about this research?
>>
>> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
>> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical 
>> statistical phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it 
>> is somehow unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with 
>> nice garnish for dinner.
>>
>> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
>> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
>> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
>> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
>> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups 
>> with some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, 
>> except on vastly different scales of course and due to other different 
>> factors, in the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of 
>> gravitational inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their 
>> grand voyages around the galactic core.
>>
>> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
>> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
>> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
>> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
>>
>> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and 
>> the seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
>>
>> Here is the link to the article:
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/
>>
>>
>  
> One can (sort of) write all "physics" in a couple of equations: the 
> Einstein Field Equation (EFE) and the Standard Model Equation (SME):
>
> EFE: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/EinsteinLeiden4.jpg/620px-EinsteinLeiden4.jpg
> +
> SME: 
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
>
> What caused *this particular arrangement* of expressions in these to be 
> the "law" of our universe I suppose can be "explained" by it's being one of 
> any number of possible arrangements.
>
>
>
> The tiny (sigma_1) arithmetical reality contains all “combinations” of all 
> programs, and your explanation is a bit like digital physics, where the 
> physical universe would be one special universal number, say U. That is 
> possible, but this can explain the origin of the physical laws, in a 
> coherent way with respect to the mind-body problem (the hard problem of 
> consciousness) only in presence of an explanation of why that program U is 
> winning, that is how such U can “multiply” you so much in the relative way 
> that the laws of physics get stabilised. Arithmetical self-reference 
> explains consciousness “easily”, but at the price of forcing us to derive 
> the physical laws from any universal machinery.
> The physical reality is not a mathematical reality among others, it is the 
> projective border of the universal mind, which is just the mind of the 
> universal machine. It is a complex many-dreams structure, and its quantum 
> aspects explain why negative amplitude of probability can play a role in 
> making the aberrant histories relatively rare, despite them being also in 
> that sigma_1 arithmetic.
>
> With mechanism, the idea that there is anything more than the sigma_1 
> arithmetical truth is absolutely undecidable. The sigma_1 truth emulates 
> the sigma_n believers for all n, and beyond. If the physics which is in the 
> head of the universal numbers departs too much from what we see, it will be 
> time to suspect that there is indeed something more. But not only there are 
> no evidence for that, but there are strong evidence for the completeness of 
> the sigma_1 truth with respect to the metaphysical questions.
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
Whatever brand of scientist - physicist, chemist, biologist, even 
psychologist - it seems that they see any theory of whatever is within 
their domain is to be composed of a finite number of sentences (e.g. 
equations, for physicists). 

To have a theory that is composed of an infinite number of sentences is 
sort of outside of their way of thinking.


- pt 

-- 
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 

modal µ-calculus and Gödel-Löb logic

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


(connecting a programming semantics with a provability logic)

On Modal µ-Calculus and Gödel-Löb Logic
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00353743/document

μ-calculus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_%CE%BC-calculus

- pt

-- 
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: On Information Rockets...

2019-02-15 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I think this is somewhat confused. There is a possible connection here, but 
it is through quantum mechanics. Mariam Mirzakhani won the Fields Medal in 
mathematics for her work on the entropy of curves in hyperbolic spaces. In 
two dimensions this space is the spatial surface embedded in an anti-de 
Sitter spacetime AdS_3. These curves are arc that are for standard cases 
the geodesics in a Poincare disk. The Ryu-Takanagi theorem illustrates how 
these curves, or for AdS_n spacetimes with higher n such as AdS_5, bound 
causal regions that can be entangled in the AdS_5. These entanglement 
regions define an entanglement entropy with the RT formula. 

For a body moving in spacetime the standard idea of general relativity is 
the path followed is the extremal or maximal length in that spacetime. 
Because of the Lorentzian metric the minimal condition for action becomes a 
maximal condition. This insures the path a particle follows is the extremal 
path in a spacetime, which is particularly important if the spacetime is 
curved. The quantum entanglement analogue of this would be that a particle 
or quantum wave will evolve according to its maximal entanglement with 
spacetime. This has the implication that spacetime itself is built from the 
entanglement of fundamental quantum states or fields. Then in that case we 
could say the path a particle follows in spacetime is determined by the 
maximal quantum entropy that particle has with spacetime.

LC

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 11:46:45 AM UTC-6, Mindey I. wrote:
>
> So, we have just had a discussion[1] start on halfbakery on the similarity 
> between an object in gravitational field, and an "information object" in 
> the entropy field. In summary, we can think of information content as an 
> object, the state of which is function of mutation rate ("entropy field"), 
> and replication rates ("centrifugal force field"). That suggests, that we 
> may be on a collision course with an alien computational universe, and we 
> need a technological singularity to amplify our kind of randomness to 
> escape the pull of their entropic field (their kind of pseudo-randomness, 
> which to us appears as entropy or true randomness).
>
> I think this relates directly with the questions, that Wei Dai has posed 
> in the announcement post ( http://www.weidai.com/everything.html ), 
> asking why do we believe that both the past and the future are not 
> completely random, but the future is more random than the past.
>
> Any thoughts or input, regarding how our universe may be moving or 
> interacting with respect to other (computational) universes, would be very 
> interesting. Also, what would this inter-universe medium, that would allow 
> computational universes interact would be? Based on previous discussions, I 
> suppose it is obvious, that the 'Everthing" is one, and the origin of 
> 'Everything' may be out of 'Nothing', however, since there may be multiple 
> ways for that derivation to happen, the space of computational may be 
> hierarchical and not entirely void.
>
> [1] https://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Information_20Rocket
>

-- 
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: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 15 Feb 2019, at 08:25, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some of 
> the physicists on here think about this research?
> 
> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical statistical 
> phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it is somehow 
> unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with nice garnish 
> for dinner.
> 
> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups with 
> some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, except 
> on vastly different scales of course and due to other different factors, in 
> the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of gravitational 
> inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their grand voyages 
> around the galactic core.
> 
> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
> 
> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and the 
> seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
> 
> Here is the link to the article:
> 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/
> 
> 
>  
> One can (sort of) write all "physics" in a couple of equations: the Einstein 
> Field Equation (EFE) and the Standard Model Equation (SME):
> 
> EFE: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/EinsteinLeiden4.jpg/620px-EinsteinLeiden4.jpg
> +
> SME: 
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
> 
> What caused this particular arrangement of expressions in these to be the 
> "law" of our universe I suppose can be "explained" by it's being one of any 
> number of possible arrangements.


The tiny (sigma_1) arithmetical reality contains all “combinations” of all 
programs, and your explanation is a bit like digital physics, where the 
physical universe would be one special universal number, say U. That is 
possible, but this can explain the origin of the physical laws, in a coherent 
way with respect to the mind-body problem (the hard problem of consciousness) 
only in presence of an explanation of why that program U is winning, that is 
how such U can “multiply” you so much in the relative way that the laws of 
physics get stabilised. Arithmetical self-reference explains consciousness 
“easily”, but at the price of forcing us to derive the physical laws from any 
universal machinery.
The physical reality is not a mathematical reality among others, it is the 
projective border of the universal mind, which is just the mind of the 
universal machine. It is a complex many-dreams structure, and its quantum 
aspects explain why negative amplitude of probability can play a role in making 
the aberrant histories relatively rare, despite them being also in that sigma_1 
arithmetic.

With mechanism, the idea that there is anything more than the sigma_1 
arithmetical truth is absolutely undecidable. The sigma_1 truth emulates the 
sigma_n believers for all n, and beyond. If the physics which is in the head of 
the universal numbers departs too much from what we see, it will be time to 
suspect that there is indeed something more. But not only there are no evidence 
for that, but there are strong evidence for the completeness of the sigma_1 
truth with respect to the metaphysical questions.

Bruno 






> 
> 
> - pt 
> 
> -- 
> 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