Re: Asifism revisited.
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote: David Nyman skrev: You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. I agree with you (despite a notion as universe is not primitive in my opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism. Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model. When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the same way as our universe is existing. The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a intended model (universe) admits automatically an infinity of non isomorphic models (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...). Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*), which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning). It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the degree of plausibility of comp. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 09-juil.-07, 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a crit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.
Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.
When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the
same way as our universe is existing.
The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a
intended model ("universe") admits automatically an infinity of non
isomorphic models (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).
Yes, you are right, the word "model" is not quite appropriate here.
The universe is not a model that satisfies a set of axioms.
The kind of rules I am thinking of, is rather that kind of rules you
have in Game of Life. When you have a situation at one moment of time
and at one place in space, you can compute the situation the next
moment of time at the same place by using the situations near this
place. The important thing is that the rules uniquely describes the
whole universe by applying the rules over and over again.
(But I want something more general than GoL-like rules, because the
GoL-rules presupposes that you have a space-time from the beginning. I
want a set of rules that are such that the space-time is a result of
the rules. But I don't know how to get there...)
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical
universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little
Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of
rules.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of
coffee is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of
an infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment
(UD*), which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate
exactly any piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond
to the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp
interference and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure
experimentally the degree of plausibility of comp.
I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules.
Just as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is
our universe the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more
complicated than the GoL-rules...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
I claim that our universe is the result of a finite set of rules. Just as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the GoL-rules... -- Torgny Tholerus What are your proofs or set of evidences that our universe as it is is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable. If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ? Quentin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Quentin Anciaux skrev: I claim that our universe is the result of a finite set of rules. Just as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the GoL-rules... What are your proofs or set of evidences that our universe as it is is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable. There are two proofs: A) Everything is finite. So our universe must be the result from a finite set of rules. B) Occams razor. Because we can explain everything in our universe from this finite set of rules, we don't need anything more complicated. If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ? Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe. A model is more like a picture of our universe. You can make a model of a GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots, but still there will hold the same relations in both these models. It is the relations that are the important things. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Some thoughts from Grandma
On 12/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal talk, because it is a tricky technical terms I tend to agree with what Brent said. Yes, I ended up more or less agreeing with him myself. But I nevertheless feel, from their posts, that this is *not* what some people have in mind when they use the term 'exists'. I'm afraid that sometimes you are near the 1004 fallacy. That may well be, but unfortunately I tend only to discover specific examples of this by trial and error. But having done so, I try to hold on to the discovery. But of course your intuition grew perhaps from non comp or non lobian origin. That's definitely the case. (I see now what could be the comp lobian observer moments, and will say more in a special purpose post. I look forward to it. Coming back from Siena, I know now that all my work on Church thesis is more original than I thought (meaning: I have to publish more before even logician grasp the whole thing ...). You have a hard row to plough! Is us = to the lobian machine? I just meant observers in general, using myself as the model. and I've been trying to convince Torgny that we shouldn't fool ourselves into mistaking such conceptions for modes of existing. But each point of view (hypostasis) defines its own mode of existence. Now Plotinus restricts the notion of existence for the ideas (here: the effective objects which provably exist in Platonia). That is why both God and Matter does not really exist in Plotinus theory. Of course God and Matter do exist, even for Plotinus, but it is a different mode of existence. I'm frustrated that I don't seem to be able to communicate what I mean here (I don't know if this is an example of 1004 or not). I meant that just because we can imagine something in a gods' eye way doesn't (for me) entail that it exists in any other way - what I called (but I'll desist!) 'reflexively' (i.e. with reference to itself, or just: for itself), which Brent was content to call existence simpliciter. This intuition of course just begins with knowing that *I* exist for myself, which implies that others exist for themselves, which ultimately implies that everything exists for itself - 'the One' being the ultimate expression of this. I don't mean to equate 'exists for itself' with consciousness, but to say that consciousness emerges as a complex aspect of such self-relation. I'm convinced both that you know what I mean by this, and also that it can be expressed in the Lobian discourse (though not by me). 'The One' is also a mode of enquiry (no less tricky, of course): it seems to suggest that the mode of existing of both the qualia and the quanta may be ineliminably reflexive: the splintering of a singular process of self-reflexion. ? That was just another way of putting what I said above: IOW, that everything is a relativisation of the One, - i.e. the primary existent-for-itself. I see now that my '1004 fallacy' is just that when I'm not sure I've been understood, I try to say it another way. But this is confusing. I see the value of your sticking to your methodology, but then the problem for the generalist is that he has to work very hard to follow you. But that of course is my problem not yours. Self: because there is no other; ? reflexion: because there is no other relation. ? Another example of (over)precision perhaps. I sometimes think a lot of time could be saved if some of these dialogues took place in the same room! I just meant that, given that all existence-for-itself derives from relativisation of the One, the notion of 'other' itself becomes relative (i.e. everything is really just an aspect of the One: there is no 'other' in any absolute sense). Consequently, all relations are relations of the One with itself: i.e. self-relations. The reason I thought this might be important, originally, is that ISTM that it had a fundamental relevance to mind-body issues. I felt that the whole 'dualist' problem came from not seeing this. Dualism is clearly not relevant when everything is an aspect of the One, so that the relations which constitute both mind and matter are self-relations. I said in an earlier post that this amounted to a kind of solipsism of the One: IOW, the One would be justified in the view (if it had one!) that it was all that existed, and that everything was simply an aspect of itself. David Le 10-juil.-07, à 14:09, David Nyman a écrit : On Jul 6, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is a unexpected (by me) discovery that quanta belongs to that sharable first person view (making the comp-QM a bit more psychological than some Many-Worlder would perhaps appreciate. Doesn't this strike you as perhaps consistent with what I've been saying about self-relation, or reflexive existence? I try to avoid the words like reflexive or reflection in informal talk, because
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : ... Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that our universe can be the result of some set of rules. Even without comp the arithmetical universe or arithmetical truth (the ONE attached to the little Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. But it can be the result of a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible. The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*), which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning). It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the degree of plausibility of comp. Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Some thoughts from Grandma
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence simpliciter isn't it? Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively exists without being observed. The tree falling unobserved in the forest does not exist reflexively, but may exist in other senses of the word. It seems quite a useful concept - I may have called it anthropic existence elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have an accepted name. Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Some thoughts from Grandma
Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: I don't see that relexive adding anything here. It's just existence simpliciter isn't it? Brent, all that David is getting at is saying nothing reflexively exists without being observed. Observed in what sense? Consciously, by a conscious being? Or decoherred into a quasi-classical state, as in QM? Reflexive would seem to imply it's observed by itself. Brent Meeker The tree falling unobserved in the forest does not exist reflexively, but may exist in other senses of the word. It seems quite a useful concept - I may have called it anthropic existence elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have an accepted name. Cheers --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
