Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:27, John Clark  wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal  > > wrote:
> > 
> > > But you should not confuse the arithmetical reality with a book, be it 
> > > virtual or relatively material.
> > One of us is very confused that much is certain. You think arithmetical 
> > reality is the only reality there is
> > 
> 
> I have never said what I think. That is private. But I can prove that if 
> mechanism is true, then we cannot assume more than arithmetic (or Turing 
> equivalent) without being inconsistent.

That is surprising. Why would assuming the existence of real numbers
make one inconsistent? Otiose, perhaps, but not inconsistent, surely.


-- 


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.

Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Jason Resch]

John,

See the paper I linked recently  in the "Solomonoff's induction" thread:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf

In particular, it describes the same first person indeterminacy in the form
of a faulty teleporter device thought experiment, and shows why this is an
important and fundamental notion when explaining physical reality as we
know it.

Jason

On Monday, July 2, 2018, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> *​>​you claim to have an algorithm able to predict what anyone could live
>> after a self-duplication.*
>
> I have an algorithm that can detect gibberish and gibberish questions have
> no answer. The algorithm works this way, if even after the exparament is
> over its STILL impossible to say what the prediction was suposed to be
> about then the question about the future was gibberish.
>
>> ​>>​
>>> And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not,
>>> because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged
>>> either way.
>>
>>
>> ​>*​*
>> *That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in
>> quantum gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals*
>>
>
> Cantor's theorem about large cardinals would remain unchanged regardless
> of if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, in fact it has nothing to do
> with any existing mathematics much less physics.
>
> ​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.
>

-- 
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: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*​>​you claim to have an algorithm able to predict what anyone could live
> after a self-duplication.*

I have an algorithm that can detect gibberish and gibberish questions have
no answer. The algorithm works this way, if even after the exparament is
over its STILL impossible to say what the prediction was suposed to be
about then the question about the future was gibberish.

> ​>>​
>> And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not,
>> because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged
>> either way.
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in
> quantum gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals*
>

Cantor's theorem about large cardinals would remain unchanged regardless of
if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, in fact it has nothing to do
with any existing mathematics much less physics.

​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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​>​
> *The demonstration is given in those books. It is long and technical.*
>

​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a
book and nobody ever will.

​>​
> *The book explains that computation is a purely arithmetical notion*


A explanation is not a demonstration, and they don't even explain what is
unique about their particular way of  manipulating numbers, but physics
can. Out of the infinite number of ways of manipulating numbers only one of
them is compatible with the laws of physics, and that way is called a
"calculation", all the other infinite ways of doing it is called a
"incorrect calculation".


> ​>​
> They do not mention physics at all.


​And that is why a book can not make a calculation and neither can pure
numbers.

​>>​
>> The fundamental problem is that in mathematical heaven incorrect
>> calculations are, not astronomically but INFINITELY, more common than
>> correct ones, and the ghost of Plato has no way of telling one from the
>> other, so its a good thing that matter can.
>
>
> *​>​Matter cannot do that either, or if it can, ask for the patent*
>

 I would except that Charles Babbage beat me to the patent office, by about
150 years.
​

  John K Clark​








> (and abandon computationalism).
>
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> --
> 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: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jul 2018, at 04:22, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>> ​>​>>​ ​If “0 things exist” is true, I don’t see how “0 things exist” can 
>> exist.
>>  
>> ​>>​If if “0 things exist” is true then “0 things exist” exists,
> ​>​That does not follow. If the universe is empty, i.e. u = { },
> 
> The null set is something, my nothing does not contain a set of any sort.
> 
> ​>​So you agree with Jason that the “nothing theory” is inconsistent?​ ​I am 
> not sure it is inconsistent, but I am sure it is false.
> 
> So you think "nothing" could be a grammatically correct fictional story with 
> no plot holes written in the language of mathematics. You could be right.
> 
>> >​>>​ I think we should distinguish well between “being true” and existence.
>> 
>> ​>>​If there is a difference between  “being true” and existence then 
>> either: 
>> 
>> 1) Some things are true but don't exist. In other words some things are 
>> logically consistent but are self contained and have nothing to do with 
>> physics or physical reality in general.
> 
> ​>​Assuming Aristotle's theology. 
> 
> Sometimes i have the feeling I'm debating with a chatbot that has been 
> programmed to throw in the word Aristotle, theology, Plato or Greek at least 
> once every 250 words. 
> 
> ​>>​Or in still other words some mathematical stories are fictional and much 
> of modern abstract mathematics has no deeper meaning than a Harry Potter 
> novel and the fanfiction stories that spawn off from it.
> 
> ​>​That is inconsistent with mechanism,
> 
> I see no reason to to think that must be true.

Because you claim to have an algorithm able to predict what anyone could live 
after a self-duplication. But you have never given that algorithm, except “W & 
M” which is refuted immediately by both copies. So, it is hardly astonishing 
you can get this point.





> You can write a story in the English language that is grammatical and 
> contains no logical plot holes but that never happened, why can't the same 
> thing be done in the mathematical language?   

Because if the story is consistent and based on some computation, some 
computation in arithmetic will emulate it, and no Turing machine can see 
immediately the difference.





>  
> ​>​but also pretty ridiculous.
> 
> I'm just trying to follow the consequences of your statement "we should 
> distinguish well between “being true” and existence".
>  
> If 1+1 = 2 is fiction, then,​ [...]​
> 
> I didn't say every consistent mathematical statement was fiction! I'm sure 
> 1+2=2 is nonfiction,

You worry me.I guess it is a typo.



> I'm less sure that Cantor's Theorem on transfinite sets is.

With mechanism, it is. That is the whole difference between cantor Diagonal and 
Kleene diagonal, which I did explain many times here.




> And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, because 
> all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged either way. 

That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in quantum 
gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals (until someone found 
more “elementary” proof). 
It is hard to tell in advance if some math will or not been applicable in some 
other science. Hardy was “proud” that number theory did not have application 
and he thought it would never add, but he was wrong. 




> 
> ​>​In logic, logicians have tools to delineate precisely the difference 
> between truth and existence. Existence os when an existential proposition is 
> true,
> 
> ​So logicians have concluded that ​existence exists when its true that 
> existence exists? 


Not at all. Logicians said that a theory proves an existence when they can 
prove with the theory some formula F(t), where t is a closed term of the 
theory. They use the inference rule

F(t)
——   (or some others, more sophisticated to be valid in the intuitionist 
frame).
ExT(x)


And, as they don’t do metaphysics, they add nothing. Obviously in metaphysics, 
the situation if far more complex, and we have to distinguish between 
ontological or primitive existence and phenomenological appearance of 
existence. Incompleteness already imposes such nuances all by itself.

Bruno 




> 
> ​John K Clark
> 
>  ​
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you ar

Re: Primary matter

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jul 2018, at 00:04, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/1/2018 5:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 20:18, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/29/2018 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 27 Jun 2018, at 20:43, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/27/2018 1:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On 27 June 2018 at 03:24, Brent Meeker  
>>  wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Well, he discovered the principle of selection with variability, and
>> how this leads to biological complexification. That is no small part
>> of the puzzle. I meant Darwinism in the neo-Darwinism sense, including
>> Mendel's postulation of genes, Crick and Watson's discovery of DNA
>> structure and many other things.
>> 
>> Notice the difference. We have all of these mechanisms to back the
>> "life emerges from chemistry" theory. Each one explains a piece of the
>> puzzle. For consciousness we have nada.
> 
> But we don't have nada.  We have some understanding of how neurons work 
> and we've even made some AI based on neural nets that is surprisingly 
> intelligent in a narrow domain.  We know a lot about how a brain produces 
> consciousness from the way that injury or external stimulus affects 
> consciousness.  
 
 OK. But that leads to Mechanism. Then computer science explains 
 “consciousness” by showing that when a machine introspect itself, it 
 discover consciousness, i.e. immediate non-doubtable subjective belief in 
 some truth, yet a non provable (transcendent) one, not even definable 
 (like truth itself).And we get a mathematically very precise theory of 
 qualia. But the quanta have to be part of those qualia, and this make the 
 theory testable. It explain the why and how of consciousness, but also the 
 matter appearances, and this with all details, so that we can test the 
 mechanist theory of consciousness.
 
 
 
> 
> I know you're thinking, "But that doesn't explain why the brain processes 
> produce consciousness".  My point is that you don't ask why planets 
> produce gravity. 
 
 ?
 I though that this what Einstein asked for, and solved: mass produce 
 gravity by curving space-time.
 
 
 
> Once you have an equation that precisely predicts "what" you stop asking 
> "why”. 
 
 Hmm… Not if you are interested in metaphysics/theology. I stop only on 
 2+2=4.
 
 
 
> When we can predict, manipulate, and create intelligent human-like 
> behavior
 
 That will never happen, or it already happened with the discovery of the 
 universal machine. The question is when that machine will be as stupid as 
 human. But I guess this is vocabulary. I guess you mean “competent 
 machine”. The universal machine might be the most intelligent entities 
 ever, but also very fragile: it can become dumb to the point of believing 
 in its own intelligence, which is the mark of stupidity.
>>> 
>>> That's misusing the words.  It can't be stupid to believe in your own 
>>> intelligence if you are intelligent. 
>> 
>> You can’t assume it, or assert it, without asserting y

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:27, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > But you should not confuse the arithmetical reality with a book, be it 
> > virtual or relatively material.
> One of us is very confused that much is certain. You think arithmetical 
> reality is the only reality there is
> 

I have never said what I think. That is private. But I can prove that if 
mechanism is true, then we cannot assume more than arithmetic (or Turing 
equivalent) without being inconsistent.



> and the book is real
> 
Plausibly. But that does not entail that it is primitively real.




> but for unknown reasons it can't calculate 2+2. As for me I think if you want 
> to avoid confusion you should stop referring people to a book whenever they 
> ask for a demonstration of a non-physical calculation.
> 
> 

That is ridiculous. The demonstration is given in those books. It is long and 
technical.



> > If you would open and read the books,
> OK already you're asking me to do something mathematics could never do.
> 
In your theory, which is inconsistent with your faith in computationalism.




> Forget reading just opening a book requires energy, and all the Real Numbers 
> and all the Complex Numbers and all the p-adic numbers put together don't 
> have one electron volt's worth of energy.  And even after I've finished my 
> arduous struggle and managed to get the book open it orders me to perform 
> calculations, and that will require even more energy. 
> 
> 

In your theory, which is inconsistent with your faith in computationalism.


> > you would see that they do not just gives the recipe, but shows that those 
> > recipe are enacted
> Yes, the book shows recipes for getting answers to questions
> 

No. The book explains that computation is a purely arithmetical notion, 
assuming nothing about the physical reality, not even that there is a primitive 
physical reality.



> and how those recipes are enacted by matter that obeys the laws of physics.
> 

They do not mention physics at all.


> The book will say things like "there exists an element x in the set Y with 
> blah blah properties"  and that may indeed be true but there is are also a 
> infinite number of elements in set Y that do NOT have the blah blah property, 
> and then the book will either give an existence proof that the element x must 
> be in that infinite sea of other elements somewhere but give no hint of how 
> to find out what it is, or it will give a recipe for finding x, a recipe that 
> only matter that obeys the laws of physics can perform.
> 

Wrong. 




> The recipe in the book will say  "let n be blah blah" but an equation can't 
> "let" anything, only you can. And the recipe will say things like "multiply 
> equation 10-42 by blah blah, cancel out what can be canceled out, then 
> integrate from zero to n and you will find x".  But a equation can't "let" 
> things or “multiply" things or "cancel out" things or "integrate” things 
> because equations can’t “do” anything, only you can “do” things, only you can 
> perform those calculations and fortunately you are made of matter that obeys 
> the laws of physics.   
> 
> > I gave explanation, but to do this here would be very long.
> I have no doubt it would be long, very very long, but I don't want an 
> explanation, I want a DEMONSTRATION, a demonstration of a non-physical 
> calculation, and I'm sure the Intel Corporation would like to see that 
> demonstrated too. I don't demand anything fancy, 2+2=4 would be fine. The 
> fundamental problem is that in mathematical heaven incorrect calculations 
> are, not astronomically but INFINITELY, more common than correct ones, and 
> the ghost of Plato has no way of telling one from the other, so its a good 
> thing that matter can. 
> 
> 

Matter cannot do that either, or if it can, ask for the patent (and abandon 
computationalism).


> >  do you understand the difference between a book and a mathematical reality?
> Yes, but then unlike you I don't believe the mathematical language created 
> everything, and I don't think the English language did either.
> 
> 


You seem unaware of the difference between language, theories and models 
(realities). 


Bruno






>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subsc