Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG

-- 
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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:29 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> in the biological world certain problems that are NP are figured out.
> This runs from ants finding the minimal distance for their trails or even
> protistans negotiating some space. Ants are good at approximately solving
> the traveling salesman problem, the classic NP algorithm.*


It's easy to solve the traveling salesman problem if the number of cities
involved is small, but I see no evidence that nature can in general solve
NP problems in polynomial time. Of course there are many claims to the
contrary so Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson decided to but the
matter to a simple experimental test, this is what he reported:


*"taking two glass plates with pegs between them, and dipping the resulting
contraption into a tub of soapy water. The idea is that the soap bubbles
that form between the pegs should trace out the minimum Steiner tree — that
is, the minimum total length of line segments connecting the pegs,
where the segments can meet at points other than the pegs themselves. Now,
this is known to be an NP-hard optimization problem. So, it looks like
Nature is solving NP-hard problems in polynomial time!*

*Long story short, I went to the hardware store, bought some glass plates,
liquid soap, etc., and found that, while Nature does often find a minimum
Steiner tree with 4 or 5 pegs, it tends to get stuck at local optima with
larger numbers of pegs. Indeed, often the soap bubbles settle down to
a configuration which is not even a tree (i.e. contains “cycles of soap”),
and thus provably can’t be optimal.*

*The situation is similar for protein folding. Again, people have said that
Nature seems to be solving an NP-hard optimization problem in every cell of
your body, by letting the proteins fold into their minimum-energy
configurations. But there are two problems with this claim. The first
problem is that proteins, just like soap bubbles, sometimes get stuck in
suboptimal configurations — indeed, it’s believed that’s exactly what
happens with Mad Cow Disease. The second problem is that, to the
extent that proteins do usually fold into their optimal configurations,
there’s an obvious reason why they would: natural selection! If  there were
a protein that could only be folded by proving the Riemann Hypothesis, the
gene that coded for it would quickly get weeded out of the gene pool." *


> *> The ants crawl all over the place and the trails with the largest
> pheremone density tend to be those that are a solution or near solution to
> the traveling salesman problem.*


It's not difficult to good solutions to the traveling salesman problem but
it's very hard to find a the perfect solution or even to check that a
proposed answer is indeed the best there is. I don't believe ants can in
general find the perfect solution, but even if they did being a NP problem
there is no efficient way to even check the answer, so how in the would
could you know it was the perfect solution?

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

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/10/2019 2:29 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 3/7/2019 2:15 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

This makes a lot of sense, for in the biological world certain
problems that are NP are figured out. This runs from ants finding
the minimal distance for their trails or even protistans
negotiating some space. Ants are good at approximately solving
the traveling salesman problem, the classic NP algorithm.


Not really.  The 'ants' are just part of an algorithm that solves
the traveling salesman program, and they aren't accurate
simulations of ants.  Real ants don't make tours of vertices and
they don't go back and update their pheromone trail.

Brent


I suppose I am not sure what you mean here. The ants crawl all over 
the place and the trails with the largest pheremone density tend to be 
those that are a solution or near solution to the traveling salesman 
problem.


As I recall, it said the ants spread out from each city and when an ant 
reached an adjacent city the "pheremone" intensity of that path was raised.


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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/7/2019 2:15 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This makes a lot of sense, for in the biological world certain problems 
> that are NP are figured out. This runs from ants finding the minimal 
> distance for their trails or even protistans negotiating some space. Ants 
> are good at approximately solving the traveling salesman problem, the 
> classic NP algorithm.
>
>
> Not really.  The 'ants' are just part of an algorithm that solves the 
> traveling salesman program, and they aren't accurate simulations of ants.  
> Real ants don't make tours of vertices and they don't go back and update 
> their pheromone trail.
>
> Brent
>

I suppose I am not sure what you mean here. The ants crawl all over the 
place and the trails with the largest pheremone density tend to be those 
that are a solution or near solution to the traveling salesman problem.

LC

-- 
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

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/10/2019 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 9 Mar 2019, at 01:16, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 3/8/2019 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Why is the probability not 1.0.  Why is there any effect at all in any 
continuation?  Why is experience dependent on physics, if it is just a matter 
of timeless arithmetical relations.

Because to get physics you need to be able to make prediction.


But why do you need to "get physics".  You seem to be arguing 
backwards from the conclusion you want.  You know you need to get 
physics to make a prediction, otherwise your theory is useless.  So 
then you argue that therefore substituting for brain parts is 
necessary because that makes "getting physics" necessary.


I don’t understand. What do you mean by “substituting brain parts is 
necessary”. It is my working hypothesis.


But then you reach a contradiction that brain parts don't exist and are 
irrelevant to thought.


It is the exactly same hypothesis made by Darwin, and most scientists 
since. That physics has to be recovered from arithmetic is shown to be 
a consequence of that theory. And the proofs I have given is 
constructive, so it explains how to recover physics from arithmetic. 
Most of the weirdness of quantum physics becomes indisputable 
arithmetic facts. In fact, the classical, or quasi classical part of 
physics is far more difficult to be derived, but it has still to be 
derivable, unless Mechanism is false (in which case we are back at the 
start).


Keep in mind that with Mechanism, physicalism is already refuted.


A tautology: With Communism, capitalism is already refuted.

With physicalism, you need a god to select a computation, or a 
collection of computation, to make a prediction. But if that God 
exists, you cannot say that you survive a digital substitution of the 
brain *qua computation”. You can still say yes to a doctor, invoking 
the strangest magical abilities of your god or another.


If you doubt this, just tell me how A Nature, or a Primary Matter, or 
any God, select the computation which all occurs, are executed in the 
(sigma_1) arithmetical reality.


If you argue that the computation in arithmetic are not real, you 
again invoke your god. The word “real” has to be avoid in science, 
especially in theology when done with the scientific method.


But you invoke your god to justify your argument for your god: /In fact, 
the classical, or quasi classical part of physics is far more difficult 
to be derived, but it has still to be derivable, *unless Mechanism is 
false* (in which case we are back at the start).


/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: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Mar 2019, at 13:52, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:10:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:16, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:43, John Clark > wrote:
 
 On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:
 
 > You confirm my theory that strong (non agnostic) atheism is radical 
 > religious fundamentalism
 
 I've never heard you or anybody else criticize me that brilliantly before, 
 you sure put me in my place. I am devastated!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Lol. 
>>> 
>>> The fact remains. Anyone mocking the science theology, helps the radicals, 
>>> who have separated theology from science to mix it with (fake) politics 
>>> (and real tyranny). You are under the influence of the post 529 
>>> pseudo-christian propaganda. You defend, not intentionally I suppose, those 
>>> who want us remaining non educated. 
>>> The greek theology (not the greek mythology!) is at the origin of 
>>> mathematics, physics, and even mathematical logic more recently.
>>> 
>>> Note that the USSR, which have banned both religion and theology, did the 
>>> same thing with biology. By mixing it with the state, it becomes 
>>> obscurantist and non sensical (which led to a big famine).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 > By theology, you know that  [...]  Plato define God by [...]
 
 I'm sorry did you say something? I think I fell asleep 
>>> 
>>> Since long …
>>> Since 529, somehow, I guess. 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Epicurus (via Lucretius) had a philosophy based on physical and psychical 
>>> atoms.
>> 
>> 
>> Intersting! (And just now you don’t provide links? I would be interested. It 
>> would show that early materialist where not eliminativist). Plotinus already 
>> complained on “eliminative materialism”, in its own term. I find this both 
>> inexact and inhuman.
>> 
>> But that leads to a non necessary dualism, which is also incompatible with 
>> Descartes Mechanism and Turing’s one.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the writings of Epicurus and Democritus and their students should 
>>> have been preserved and the writings of Plato and Aristotle should have 
>>> been destroyed.
>>> 
>>> :)
>> 
>> Lol
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Epicurus: 
>> 
>> Psychical [soul] atoms combine with physical [body] atoms to make conscious 
>> beings.
>> 
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi 
>> 
>> 
>> Having established the physical basis of the world,
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
>> Epicurus proceeds to explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is the 
>> order in which Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course, consists of 
>> atoms: first, there is nothing that is not made up of atoms
> 
> Assuming physicalism and atomism.
> 
> 
> 
>> and void (secondary qualities are simply accidents of the arrangement of 
>> atoms),
> 
> 
> That is the eternal confusion between first person and third person, and it 
> leads, with mechanism, to elimination of the person, or to dualisme, or 
> indeed to panpsychism, which explains absolutely nothing: neither mind nor 
> matter. 
> 
> Matter is an invention of the devil to distract us from the real thing.
> 
> Well, in neoplatonism, you define matter by where God lose control. Of course 
> it is not the christian god. The greeks neoplatonist knew already that it 
> makes not much sense to assume that God is omniscient and/or omnipotent. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> and second, an incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by 
>> bodies,
> 
> 
> That is a good point. But that is the reason to not *assume* matter and 
> movement in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> as the soul is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the 
>> body, and it initiates physical movement).
> 
> That is the shadow of Mechanism, but adding atom of souls make the brain more 
> mysterious, especially that we have not find such atoms. And would they 
> exist, the mind-body problem is only made more complex, if not unsolvable. At 
> least Epicurus is not eliminativist, like most religious person.
> 
> 
> 
>> Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are particularly fine and are distributed 
>> throughout the body (LH 64), and it is by means of them that we have 
>> sensations (aisthêseis) and the experience of pain and pleasure, which 
>> Epicurus calls pathê (a term used by Aristotle and others to signify 
>> emotions instead). Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and 
>> when the atoms of the body are disarranged so that it can no longer support 
>> conscious life, the soul atoms are scattered and no longer retain the 
>> capacity for sensation (LH 65). There is also a part of the human soul that 
>>

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 01:16, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/8/2019 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Why is the probability not 1.0.  Why is there any effect at all in any 
>>> continuation?  Why is experience dependent on physics, if it is just a 
>>> matter of timeless arithmetical relations.
>> Because to get physics you need to be able to make prediction.
> 
> But why do you need to "get physics".  You seem to be arguing backwards from 
> the conclusion you want.  You know you need to get physics to make a 
> prediction, otherwise your theory is useless.  So then you argue that 
> therefore substituting for brain parts is necessary because that makes 
> "getting physics" necessary.

I don’t understand. What do you mean by “substituting brain parts is 
necessary”. It is my working hypothesis. It is the exactly same hypothesis made 
by Darwin, and most scientists since. That physics has to be recovered from 
arithmetic is shown to be a consequence of that theory. And the proofs I have 
given is constructive, so it explains how to recover physics from arithmetic. 
Most of the weirdness of quantum physics becomes indisputable arithmetic facts. 
In fact, the classical, or quasi classical part of physics is far more 
difficult to be derived, but it has still to be derivable, unless Mechanism is 
false (in which case we are back at the start).

Keep in mind that with Mechanism, physicalism is already refuted. With 
physicalism, you need a god to select a computation, or a collection of 
computation, to make a prediction. But if that God exists, you cannot say that 
you survive a digital substitution of the brain *qua computation”. You can 
still say yes to a doctor, invoking the strangest magical abilities of your god 
or another.

If you doubt this, just tell me how A Nature, or a Primary Matter, or any God, 
select the computation which all occurs, are executed in the (sigma_1) 
arithmetical reality.

If you argue that the computation in arithmetic are not real, you again invoke 
your god. The word “real” has to be avoid in science, especially in theology 
when done with the scientific method.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 12:29, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 4:42:28 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Mar 2019, at 23:00, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:47:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 22:10, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We cannot predict in advance if a machine will stop. The extensional 
>>> equality of machines, or combinators, is unsolvable. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is some conceptual and practical division between mathematics and 
>>> applied mathematics
>> 
>> Yes. But note that the division we can made there are dependent of the 
>> metaphysics.
>> 
>> Then Gödel has shown that we can apply mathematics to metamathematics, and 
>> that a large part of metamathematics is in mathematics, so mathematics have 
>> application in mathematics. But that is obvious through the representation 
>> theorems, and my factors. We can say that the theory of complex analysis has 
>> found extraordinary application in the pure number theory, like Riemann 
>> discovered. 
>> 
>> Category theory is born from the discovery of abstract pattern relying many 
>> application of some branch of math to another branch of math. It helps 
>> mathematician to not reinvent the wheel all the time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> (and there are institutionally separate Mathematics (PM, P for "Pure") and 
>>> Applied Mathematics (AM) Departments or Divisions at some universities.
>> 
>> Yes. That has been the root of my problem with some local academician. I 
>> naively stated that I decide to study mathematics because I saw application 
>> of mathematical logic (the second recursion theorem) to biology (like I have 
>> shown in my paper “Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming machine”. But I was told 
>> that mathematical logic was taught in the section of Pure Mathematics, where 
>> it was very badly seen to apply mathematics to anything but mathematics. 
>> This illustrates it makes no sense to decide that some part of math are pure 
>> or not.
>> 
>> And this is even more true with mechanism.  There is no more an ontological 
>> physical reality, or any gods of that sort (which have never been tested, 
>> actually, except with my work, of course, where the test was negative for 
>> “Matter”). So the fundamental reality becomes mathematical. And we are pure 
>> mathematical object living in a mathematical reality. That is not entirely 
>> correct, because the internal phenomenology, for technical reason, escapes 
>> even the whole of mathematics. So, eventually, the reality is theological, 
>> to be correct. But the theology of the machines is a theory, which today, is 
>> classified in pure mathematics (the logic of provability). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> There is a PM and an AM way of approaching what "computing" is.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, even in arithmetic. The universal machine discover that there is a big 
>> difference between being implemented by a nameable “in principle” universal 
>> number, and being implemented by something emerging from an infinity of 
>> computations from the first person points of view. The first leads to the 
>> theory G* (the “scientific theology of the ideally sound machine”), and the 
>> others leads to quantum logic and physics, and the right one, if mechanism 
>> is correct.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> In an AM way of thinking, no computer can run forever, assuming what 
>>> scientists theorize about the future of the universe (big freeze, crunch, 
>>> etc.).
>> 
>> And assuming some physical reality. If you do serious metaphysics, it is 
>> better to invoke an ontological commitment only in last ressort. Invoking an 
>> ontological or primary physical universe is like saying “and god made it”. 
>> That does not work. It is wishful thinking, provably if Mechanism is assumed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> AM would see computing as being nothing more than what can be done on 
>>> material computers, natural or manmade. 
>> 
>> Computation have been discovered in arithmetic, before physics.
>> 
>> Of course, the fact that we have cells and brains suggest, once we 
>> understand that a computation is an arithmetical notion,  that the physical 
>> reality too is Turing complete. But with mechanism, to solve the mind-body 
>> problem, you have to derive the physical reality (and its Turing 
>> completeness) from arithmetic. It is nota question of choice.
>> 
>> Of course you can say that in your religion, machine cannot have souls, that 
>> you are not a machine, and so you can believe in the fantasy you want. That 
>> is what we do since we have put theology out of science (just to make it 
>> possible for some tyran to exploit people).
>> 
>> Or you can try to build a precise non computationalist theory of mind, and 
>> how to test it, in which case the computationalist theory will gives many 
>> hint. Indeed, if some logic

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 22:00, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>  > BB(8000) is stil an infinitesimal (so to speak) compared to 
> f_epsilon_0(BB(8000)).
> 
> I don't know what "f_epsilon_0" is but if its computable then BB[BB(8000)]

Good point. But now, using epsilon_0, which is the constructive ordinal 

 omega^(omega^(omega^(omega^…, or equivalently omega tetrated to omega 
(tetration is the iteration of exponentiation, like exponentiation is the 
iteration of multiplication, and multiplication is the iteration of addition).

You can iterate the application of BB epsilon_0 times, and actually, alpha 
times for alpha any constructive ordinal.

If the problem is to name a large number, or just to point to a large number, 
in all case the winner is the one who will be able to use the constructive 
ordinal. 

Now, as you don’t ask for a name (definite description, programs to build that 
name) the question raised if you could not iterate BB on non constructive 
ordinals, but that will make the pointing even more fuzzy and not well 
definite. Continuing this process will lead to inconsistency, at to some 
undecidable threshold.

Bruno




> would be a larger number than that because BB grows faster than any 
> computable function.
> 
> 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: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:49, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> Assuming you're just using 2 symbols (like 0 and 1) there are (16001)^8000 
> >>  different 8000 state Turing Machines. And that is a very large number but 
> >> a finite one. And one of those machines makes the largest number of FINITE 
> >> operations before halting. And that number of operations is BB(8000).  
> >> Even theoretically, much less practically,  you can never compute that 
> >> number but I have given a unique description of it, no other 8000 state 
> >> Turing Machine has that propertie.
>  
> > Yes, sure BB(8000) is a precise well defined finite number. But it is no 
> > what logician and philosopher call a “name”, where the number should be 
> > computable in principle. My point is just a vocabulary point,
> 
> I agree it's just a question of vocabulary but to avoid confusion if logician 
> and philosophers want to use commonly used words then their technical meaning 
> should have some relationship to their common meaning. Parents can give a 
> precise definition to their child (he's the only kid in the crib) so they can 
> "name" him even though they can't calculate him.
>  
> > and a way to remind a nice problem which I have used to illustrate some 
> > less known application of Cantor’s diagonal.
> 
> It always seemed to me that if Cantor had taken just one more small step he 
> could have proven the existence of non computable numbers more than 40 years 
> before Turing did.


Similarly, if you read Plotinus’ Ennead “On the Number”, you can see that 
Plotinus was foreseeing the Difficulty that Cantor was confronted with the 
notion of set, notably by trying to get a number of the numbers, which was a 
natural idea for a platonician, but one of those ideas which leads to 
conceptual difficulties, and theological one too, as Cantor saw by having an 
heavy correspondence with the catholic clergy. 
I think that if we would not have been obliged, by violence and terror, to 
separate science and theology, and to not have mixed it with the State(s), the 
whole “Church-Turing-Gödel” revolution could have appeared 500 hundred years 
before. I take the discovery of the Universal Machine, made by Babbage, Post, 
Church Turing is the biggest discovery made by the humans ever. It changes 
literally everything including the conception we can have on everything.

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 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: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:10:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:16, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:43, John Clark  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:30 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> You confirm my theory that strong (non agnostic) atheism is radical 
 religious fundamentalism*
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never heard you or anybody else criticize me that brilliantly 
>>> before, you sure put me in my place. I am devastated!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lol. 
>>>
>>> The fact remains. Anyone mocking the science theology, helps the 
>>> radicals, who have separated theology from science to mix it with (fake) 
>>> politics (and real tyranny). You are under the influence of the post 529 
>>> pseudo-christian propaganda. You defend, not intentionally I suppose, those 
>>> who want us remaining non educated. 
>>> The greek theology (not the greek mythology!) is at the origin of 
>>> mathematics, physics, and even mathematical logic more recently.
>>>
>>> Note that the USSR, which have banned both religion and theology, did 
>>> the same thing with biology. By mixing it with the state, it becomes 
>>> obscurantist and non sensical (which led to a big famine).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > By theology, you know that  [...]  *Plato define God by* [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry did you say something? I think I fell asleep 
>>>
>>>
>>> Since long …
>>> Since 529, somehow, I guess. 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Epicurus (via Lucretius) had a philosophy based on physical and 
>> psychical atoms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Intersting! (And just now you don’t provide links? I would be interested. 
>> It would show that early materialist where not eliminativist). Plotinus 
>> already complained on “eliminative materialism”, in its own term. I find 
>> this both inexact and inhuman.
>>
>> But that leads to a non necessary dualism, which is also incompatible 
>> with Descartes Mechanism and Turing’s one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the writings of Epicurus and Democritus and their students should 
>> have been preserved and the writings of Plato and Aristotle should have 
>> been destroyed.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>> Lol
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Epicurus: 
>
> Psychical [soul] atoms combine with physical [body] atoms to make 
> conscious beings.
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi
>
> *Having established the physical basis of the world, *
>
>
> How?
>
>
>
> *Epicurus proceeds to explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is 
> the order in which Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course, 
> consists of atoms: first, there is nothing that is not made up of atoms*
>
>
> Assuming physicalism and atomism.
>
>
>
> * and void (secondary qualities are simply accidents of the arrangement of 
> atoms),*
>
>
>
> That is the eternal confusion between first person and third person, and 
> it leads, with mechanism, to elimination of the person, or to dualisme, or 
> indeed to panpsychism, which explains absolutely nothing: neither mind nor 
> matter. 
>
> Matter is an invention of the devil to distract us from the real thing.
>
> Well, in neoplatonism, you define matter by where God lose control. Of 
> course it is not the christian god. The greeks neoplatonist knew already 
> that it makes not much sense to assume that God is omniscient and/or 
> omnipotent. 
>
>
>
>
> * and second, an incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by 
> bodies,*
>
>
>
> That is a good point. But that is the reason to not *assume* matter and 
> movement in the first place.
>
>
>
>
> * as the soul is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the 
> body, and it initiates physical movement). *
>
>
> That is the shadow of Mechanism, but adding atom of souls make the brain 
> more mysterious, especially that we have not find such atoms. And would 
> they exist, the mind-body problem is only made more complex, if not 
> unsolvable. At least Epicurus is not eliminativist, like most religious 
> person.
>
>
>
> *Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are particularly fine and are 
> distributed throughout the body (LH 64), and it is by means of them that we 
> have sensations (aisthêseis) and the experience of pain and pleasure, which 
> Epicurus calls pathê (a term used by Aristotle and others to signify 
> emotions instead). Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and 
> when the atoms of the body are disarranged so that it can no longer support 
> conscious life, the soul atoms are scattered and no longer retain the 
> capacity for sensation (LH 65). There is also a part of the human soul that 
> is concentrated in the chest, and is the seat of the higher intellectual 
> functions. The distinction is important, because it is in the rational part 
> that error of judgment enters

Re: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:43, John Clark > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>>> 
>>> > You confirm my theory that strong (non agnostic) atheism is radical 
>>> > religious fundamentalism
>>> 
>>> I've never heard you or anybody else criticize me that brilliantly before, 
>>> you sure put me in my place. I am devastated!
>> 
>> 
>> Lol. 
>> 
>> The fact remains. Anyone mocking the science theology, helps the radicals, 
>> who have separated theology from science to mix it with (fake) politics (and 
>> real tyranny). You are under the influence of the post 529 pseudo-christian 
>> propaganda. You defend, not intentionally I suppose, those who want us 
>> remaining non educated. 
>> The greek theology (not the greek mythology!) is at the origin of 
>> mathematics, physics, and even mathematical logic more recently.
>> 
>> Note that the USSR, which have banned both religion and theology, did the 
>> same thing with biology. By mixing it with the state, it becomes 
>> obscurantist and non sensical (which led to a big famine).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> > By theology, you know that  [...]  Plato define God by [...]
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry did you say something? I think I fell asleep 
>> 
>> Since long …
>> Since 529, somehow, I guess. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Epicurus (via Lucretius) had a philosophy based on physical and psychical 
>> atoms.
> 
> 
> Intersting! (And just now you don’t provide links? I would be interested. It 
> would show that early materialist where not eliminativist). Plotinus already 
> complained on “eliminative materialism”, in its own term. I find this both 
> inexact and inhuman.
> 
> But that leads to a non necessary dualism, which is also incompatible with 
> Descartes Mechanism and Turing’s one.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Perhaps the writings of Epicurus and Democritus and their students should 
>> have been preserved and the writings of Plato and Aristotle should have been 
>> destroyed.
>> 
>> :)
> 
> Lol
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epicurus: 
> 
> Psychical [soul] atoms combine with physical [body] atoms to make conscious 
> beings.
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi
> 
> Having established the physical basis of the world,

How?



> Epicurus proceeds to explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is the 
> order in which Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course, consists of 
> atoms: first, there is nothing that is not made up of atoms

Assuming physicalism and atomism.



> and void (secondary qualities are simply accidents of the arrangement of 
> atoms),


That is the eternal confusion between first person and third person, and it 
leads, with mechanism, to elimination of the person, or to dualisme, or indeed 
to panpsychism, which explains absolutely nothing: neither mind nor matter. 

Matter is an invention of the devil to distract us from the real thing.

Well, in neoplatonism, you define matter by where God lose control. Of course 
it is not the christian god. The greeks neoplatonist knew already that it makes 
not much sense to assume that God is omniscient and/or omnipotent. 




> and second, an incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by bodies,


That is a good point. But that is the reason to not *assume* matter and 
movement in the first place.




> as the soul is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the body, 
> and it initiates physical movement).

That is the shadow of Mechanism, but adding atom of souls make the brain more 
mysterious, especially that we have not find such atoms. And would they exist, 
the mind-body problem is only made more complex, if not unsolvable. At least 
Epicurus is not eliminativist, like most religious person.



> Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are particularly fine and are distributed 
> throughout the body (LH 64), and it is by means of them that we have 
> sensations (aisthêseis) and the experience of pain and pleasure, which 
> Epicurus calls pathê (a term used by Aristotle and others to signify emotions 
> instead). Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and when the 
> atoms of the body are disarranged so that it can no longer support conscious 
> life, the soul atoms are scattered and no longer retain the capacity for 
> sensation (LH 65). There is also a part of the human soul that is 
> concentrated in the chest, and is the seat of the higher intellectual 
> functions. The distinction is important, because it is in the rational part 
> that error of judgment enters in. Sensation, like pain and pleasure, is 
> incorrigible just because it is a function of the non-rational part,

That is very good. []p&p is obviously incorrigible, and indeed []p is one who 
can err