Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 12/14/2018 7:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: Yes, you create a whole theology around not all truths are provable.  But you ignore that what is false is also provable.  Provable is only relative to axiom

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 12/14/2018 11:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:36 AM John Clark > wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>The block universe changes along the time dimension and

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 12/14/2018 10:41 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: One type of objection might be that matter is a mystery, but math isn't. But I think complexity theorists (like Chaitin) have shown that math is a mystery too. Actually the argument has been made the other way.  Math is not a mystery, it is comp

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > Yes, you create a whole theology around not all truths are provable. But > you ignore that what is false is also provable. Provable is only relative > to axioms. > > 1. Do you agree a Turing machine will either halt or not? 2. Do you agree

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 12/12/2018 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2018, at 20:26, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 12/9/2018 11:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 8:43:59 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift > wrote:

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 12/11/2018 10:34 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 12/9/2018 11:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 8:43:59 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

On 12/11/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:53:50 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:30:32 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:02:52 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com w

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 5:00:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/14/2018 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:24, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12/13/2018 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > But that is the same as saying proof=>truth. > >>>

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On 12/14/2018 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/13/2018 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But that is the same as saying proof=>truth. I don’t think so. It says that []p -> p is not provable, unless p is proved. So []([]p -> p) -> p or in ot

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:27:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:49:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 18:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, D

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:36 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > >>The block universe changes along the time dimension and special >>> relativity deals with time, but the number 3 never changes with time and >>> has nothing to do with it. >>> >> >> *>The

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 9:16:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Mathematics is immaterial, but it makes no sense to say it is fiction, > unless deciding that Aristotle is true and Plato is wrong, but I would need > some evidences for this, which are literally never given. > > Bruno

What is more primary than numbers?

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch wrote: >>The block universe changes along the time dimension and special >> relativity deals with time, but the number 3 never changes with time and >> has nothing to do with it. >> > > *>Then you agree that there can be an objectively static object,* >

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:41, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2018 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> See the bit about reversible computing: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle >> (computations >>

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 19:59, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 15:31, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:01:59 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 De

Re: Class calculus and conscious AIs

> On 14 Dec 2018, at 04:18, Mason Green wrote: > > Hi, I’m wondering if any of you have read this paper and if so, what do you > think about it. The author says he’s discovered a new kind of mathematics > that could give rise to machine consciousness. A few other publications > picked it up

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:33, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:12:35 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:27:29 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 15:12, Philip Thrift > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday,

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 5:05:28 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Dec 2018, at 20:12, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:27:29 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 15:12, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, Dece

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:27, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:49:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 18:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 11:34:48 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 20:12, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:27:29 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 15:12, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 5:34:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 De

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 4:49:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:05, Brent Meeker > > wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2018 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *Automating Gödel'’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence ¨ with > Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers* > htt

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2018 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> But that is the same as saying proof=>truth. >> >> I don’t think so. It says that []p -> p is not provable, unless p is proved. > > So []([]p -> p) -> p or in other words Proof([]p -> p

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 21:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 12/13/2018 3:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Automating Gödel'’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence ¨ with >>> Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers >>> http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf >>>

Re: Class calculus and conscious AIs

Hi Mason, On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 04:18, Mason Green wrote: > > Hi, I’m wondering if any of you have read this paper and if so, what do you > think about it. The author says he’s discovered a new kind of mathematics > that could give rise to machine consciousness. A few other publications > pic

Re: Class calculus and conscious AIs

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 9:18:47 PM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote: > > Hi, I’m wondering if any of you have read this paper and if so, what do > you think about it. The author says he’s discovered a new kind of > mathematics that could give rise to machine consciousness. A few other > publ