Re: COMP is empty(?)
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Just a little correction. I wrote (on 30 Sep 2011) : On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote: snip The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought construct which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly mean? For it to have any use we have to make a bet grounded on pure faith... So we could just as well believe in God, Why not if you make it enough precise so that people can see the scientific problem. usually God is used as an empty (indeed) answer. But with comp, both comp and God is a question, not an answer. or - better -just take the stance of observing whatever happens! Maybe that we have to bet on an substitution level for COMP to have any meaning, and our inability to know any substitution level should lead us to conclude that there probably is no substitution level, or it is undefined, which would just make sense, given that apparently COMP is undefined in its very foundations. So how would react if your daughter want to say yes to a digitalist doctor? Or what if your doctor says that this is the only chance for her to survive some disease? You are using a machine to send this post, which would not even exist if comp did not make sense. I mean ... if comp did not make sense for the reason you gave above. Obviously computer makes sense even if comp is false. But computer would not have appeared if we did not grasp the elementary arithmetical ideas. But we did grasp the elementary ideas. My point is just that it makes no sense to treat arithmetics as something that is meaningful without concrete objects. I don't see why. Concrete objects can be helpful to grasp elementary ideas about numbers for *some* people, but they might be embarrassing for others. Well, we don't need concrete *physical* objects, necessarily, but concrete mental objects, for example measurement. What do numbers mean without any concrete object, or measurement? What does 1+1=2 mean if there nothing to measure or count about the object in question? Bruno Marchal wrote: The diophantine equation x^2 = 2y^2 has no solution. That fact does not seem to me to depend on any concreteness, and I would say that concreteness is something relative. You seem to admit that naive materialism might be false, so why would little concrete pieces on stuff, or time, helps in understanding that no matter what: there are no natural numbers, different from 0, capable to satisfy the simple equation x^2 = 2y^2. This is just a consequence of using our definitions consistently. Of course we can say 1+2=3 is 3 just because we defined numbers in the way that this is true, without resorting to any concreteness. My point is that we can't derive something about the fundamental nature of things just by adhering to our own definitions of what numbers are, since these ultimately are just a bunch of definitions, whereas the actual thing they rely on (what numbers, or 0 and succesor actually are), remains totally undefined. So whatever we derive from it is just as mysterious as consciousness, or matter, or whatever else, since the basis is totally undefined. Bruno Marchal wrote: If it isn't, the whole idea of an abstract machine as an independent existing entity goes down the drain, and with it the consequences of COMP. Yes. But this too me seems senseless. It like saying that we cannot prove that 17 is really prime, we have just prove that the fiollowing line . cannot be broken in equal non trivial parts (the trivial parts being the tiny . and the big . itself). But we have no yet verify this for each of the following: . . . . . . . . . . . etc. On the contrary: to understand arithmetic, is quasi-equivalent with the understanding that a statement like 17 is prime, is independent of all concrete situation, in which 17 might be represented. Lol, the funny thing is that in your explantion you used concrete things, namely .. Of course concrete is relative. It's concreteness is not really relevant, the point is that numbers just apply to countable or measurable things. Without being countable natural numbers don't even make sense. In order for COMP to be applicable to reality, reality had to be countable, but it doesn't seem to me to be countable. Abstract machines might exist, but just as ideas. Show that they exist beyond that, and then the further reasoning can be taken more seriously. If numbers, and abstract machines exist just as ideas, everything derived from them will be further ideas. You can't unambigously conclude from some idea something about reality. Bruno Marchal wrote:
Re: COMP is empty(?)
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no successor, successor remains undefined. All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories. Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also. But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely. But natural *numbers* just make sense relative to 0 and it's successors, because just these are the *numbers*. If you define 0 in terms of natural numbers, and least (which just makes sense relative to numbers), you defined them from something undefined. So I ask you: What are natural numbers without presupposing 0 and its successors? This is a bit a technical question, which involves logic. With enough logic, 0 and s can be defined from the laws of addition and multiplication. It is not really easy. It is not technical at all. If you can't even explain to me what the fundamental object of your theory is, your whole theory is meaningless to me. I'd be very interested in you attempt to explain addition and multplication without using numbers, though. Bruno Marchal wrote: But to get the comp point, you don't need to decide what numbers are, you need only to agree with or just assume some principle, like 0 is not a successor of any natural numbers, if x ≠ y then s(x) ≠ s(y), things like that. I agree that it is sometimes useful to assume this principle, just as it sometimes useful to assume that Harry Potter uses a wand. Just because we can usefully assume some things in some contexts, do not make them universal truth. So if you want it this way, 1+1=2 is not always true, because there might be other definition of natural numbers, were 1+1=. So you might say that you mean the usual natural numbers. But usual is relative. Maybe for me 1+1= is more usual. Usual is just another word anyway. You fix the definition of natural numbers and use this to defend the absolute truths of the statements about natural numbers. This is just dogmatism. Of course you are going to get this result if you cling to your definition of natural numbers. Anyway, even if I completely agree on these principles, and you derive something interesting from it, if you ultimately are unable to define what numbers are, you effectively just use your imagination to interpret something into the undefinedness of numbers, which you could as well interpret into the undefinedess of consciousness. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything derived from it can mean anything. Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism. No. It is an argument against science based on rationality. We can use it based on our intuition. That is something else. Science is build from intuition, always. Rationality is shared intuition. Choice of axioms are done by intuition. And comp explains the key role of intuition and first person in the very fabric of reality. I don't see the link with what you are saying above. It seems on the contrary that you are the one asking for precise foundation, where rationality says that there are none, and which is something intuition can grasp. OK. I don't see how from the foundation being undefined, and possibly meaning anything, ruins the scientific endavour. If anything, it makes it more inclusive. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: One might argue that even though 0 and successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something, It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions. OK. But what else is 0? Nobody knows. But everybody agrees on some axioms, like above, and we start from that. So why is it better to start with nobody knows-0 and derive something from that than just start with nobody knows-consciousness and just interpet what consciousness means to us? Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is one more of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one more of the absence
Re: COMP is empty(?)
On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no successor, successor remains undefined. All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories. Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also. But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely. But natural *numbers* just make sense relative to 0 and it's successors, because just these are the *numbers*. If you define 0 in terms of natural numbers, and least (which just makes sense relative to numbers), you defined them from something undefined. So I ask you: What are natural numbers without presupposing 0 and its successors? This is a bit a technical question, which involves logic. With enough logic, 0 and s can be defined from the laws of addition and multiplication. It is not really easy. It is not technical at all. If you can't even explain to me what the fundamental object of your theory is, your whole theory is meaningless to me. I'd be very interested in you attempt to explain addition and multplication without using numbers, though. It's easy. It's the way you explain it to children: Take those red blocks over there and ad them to the green blocks in this box. That's addition. Now make all possible different pairs of one green block and one red block. That's multiplication. Bruno Marchal wrote: But to get the comp point, you don't need to decide what numbers are, you need only to agree with or just assume some principle, like 0 is not a successor of any natural numbers, if x ≠ y then s(x) ≠ s(y), things like that. I agree that it is sometimes useful to assume this principle, just as it sometimes useful to assume that Harry Potter uses a wand. Just because we can usefully assume some things in some contexts, do not make them universal truth. So if you want it this way, 1+1=2 is not always true, because there might be other definition of natural numbers, were 1+1=. It's always true in Platonia, where true just means satisfying the axioms. In real life it's not always true because of things like: This business is so small we just have one owner and one employee and 1+1=1. Brent So you might say that you mean the usual natural numbers. But usual is relative. Maybe for me 1+1= is more usual. Usual is just another word anyway. You fix the definition of natural numbers and use this to defend the absolute truths of the statements about natural numbers. This is just dogmatism. Of course you are going to get this result if you cling to your definition of natural numbers. Anyway, even if I completely agree on these principles, and you derive something interesting from it, if you ultimately are unable to define what numbers are, you effectively just use your imagination to interpret something into the undefinedness of numbers, which you could as well interpret into the undefinedess of consciousness. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything derived from it can mean anything. Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism. No. It is an argument against science based on rationality. We can use it based on our intuition. That is something else. Science is build from intuition, always. Rationality is shared intuition. Choice of axioms are done by intuition. And comp explains the key role of intuition and first person in the very fabric of reality. I don't see the link with what you are saying above. It seems on the contrary that you are the one asking for precise foundation, where rationality says that there are none, and which is something intuition can grasp. OK. I don't see how from the foundation being undefined, and possibly meaning anything, ruins the scientific endavour. If anything, it makes it more inclusive. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: One might argue that even though 0 and successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something, It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions. OK. But what else is 0? Nobody knows. But everybody agrees on some axioms, like above, and we start from that. So why is it better to start with nobody knows-0 and derive something from that than just start with nobody knows-consciousness and
Re: COMP is empty(?)
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote: COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on computations. This is not correct. Comp is the assumption that the brain functions without extra magic, or that the brain is just a natural machine, like the heart or the liver. It might be false, but still is a widespread belief among rationalist since many centuries, and there are no sign that it might be refuted. Materialists are often using comp as a method to hide the mind-body problem. My own works shows that attempt to be incorrect, and I use comp to formulate precisely the mind body problem. Comp reduces indeed the mind-body problem to a purely mathematical body problem, and this makes comp a scientific (testable, refutable) hypothesis. I wanted to express what you said with the words Comp reduces indeed the mind-body problem to a purely mathematical body problem. Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no successor, successor remains undefined. All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories. Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also. But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely. But natural *numbers* just make sense relative to 0 and it's successors, because just these are the *numbers*. If you define 0 in terms of natural numbers, and least (which just makes sense relative to numbers), you defined them from something undefined. So I ask you: What are natural numbers without presupposing 0 and its successors? Bruno Marchal wrote: But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything derived from it can mean anything. Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism. No. It is an argument against science based on rationality. We can use it based on our intuition. Bruno Marchal wrote: One might argue that even though 0 and successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something, It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions. OK. But what else is 0? Bruno Marchal wrote: which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is one more of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one more of the absence of something (which could mean anything). 1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its cardinal denotation. OK. But what else is 1? Bruno Marchal wrote: So even if we assume that COMP is correct, it is essentially empty, It is not empty to say yes to a doctor, for any operation proposed. OK, this isn't empty. I did not mean COMP as just saying yes doctor, but the (supposed) metaphysical consequences of it. Bruno Marchal wrote: because it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can just name the undefinedness of 0 as matter or consciousness, No, we can't. or prove it. I don't have to prove that we can tack a name onto something. It is like asking you to prove that the name of 1 is one. Bruno Marchal wrote: What you say here is meaningless. What is meaningless about saying we can call something that remains undefined, and unspecified pretty much every term that is so broad as to be undefined, and unspecified. Bruno Marchal wrote: I remind you that comp is the proposition that brain are sort of machines naturally emulating digital machine. This is accepted by all cogniyive scientist, and it makes sense. Indeed it might be false. OK, I rather meant (metaphysical) consequences of COMP. Of course we can bet on the brain being some sort of machine, on some level. It gets critical when COMP is interpreted as an abstract statement about abstract digital machines, and consequences are derived from that. Bruno Marchal wrote: and there we have the very same mystery we wanted to explain. No. It follows from comp that we have to derive physics from Number theory. This is a theorem, and not an assumption. Yes, but
Re: COMP is empty(?)
Bruno Marchal wrote: Just a little correction. I wrote (on 30 Sep 2011) : On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote: COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on computations. This is not correct. Comp is the assumption that the brain functions without extra magic, or that the brain is just a natural machine, like the heart or the liver. It might be false, but still is a widespread belief among rationalist since many centuries, and there are no sign that it might be refuted. Materialists are often using comp as a method to hide the mind-body problem. My own works shows that attempt to be incorrect, and I use comp to formulate precisely the mind body problem. Comp reduces indeed the mind-body problem to a purely mathematical body problem, and this makes comp a scientific (testable, refutable) hypothesis. But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no successor, successor remains undefined. All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories. Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also. But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely. But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything derived from it can mean anything. Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism. One might argue that even though 0 and successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something, It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions. which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is one more of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one more of the absence of something (which could mean anything). 1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its cardinal denotation. If you were true you could say that 2011 = 211. So even if we assume that COMP is correct, it is essentially empty, It is not empty to say yes to a doctor, for any operation proposed. because it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can just name the undefinedness of 0 as matter or consciousness, No, we can't. or prove it. What you say here is meaningless. I remind you that comp is the proposition that brain are sort of machines naturally emulating digital machine. This is accepted by all cogniyive scientist, and it makes sense. Indeed it might be false. and there we have the very same mystery we wanted to explain. No. It follows from comp that we have to derive physics from Number theory. This is a theorem, and not an assumption. Every computation could manifest itself in arbitrary ways... COMP itself says that actual 1- experience is related to an infinity of computations. Comp proves this, but does not assume this. That's even worse, so we have an infinity of undefined computations. Every computation (or infinite computations) can correspond to every (or none) experience, that is, ultimately COMP says nothing about experience. If it would, it had to give a mapping of computation (/infinite computations) to experiences... But since experience is ultimately not divisible in chunks of concrete, seperate experiences, this attempt is bound to fail. On the contrary, comp maps the experience with the internal brain(s) processes. It just happens that, like QM confirmed already, the brain matter appears to be multiplied and distributed, in a mathematically precise way, in the dovetailing on all computations. The notion of universality behind the universal dovetailing is the only universality on which all mathematician agree, unlike set or categories, or any other notion of universality. The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought construct which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly mean? For it to have any use we have to make a bet grounded on pure faith... So we could just as well believe in God, Why not if you
Re: COMP is empty(?)
Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sep 30, 11:26 am, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on computations. But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. They are sensorimotive phenomenology. Gestural essences experienced by a human psyche, communicated through laryngeal grunts or scratches in the sand, tracings of ink or graphite on bleached wood pulp, indexed binary registers embossed onto doped silicon, but ultimately decoded as circuits of sense: expectations strung out into elegant webs of refractory logics of satisfaction. They are hallucinations we can share with each other, and with inanimate objects selected for their precision of compliance. That is what numbers are. Sensemaking grooves which we share with other worlds. Craig I basically agree. I wouldn't call them senorimotive, but I agree they are just contents of our mind, without an independent reality. But if they are just that, they are only defined as phenomena, which means basically undefined, in terms of precise definition needed in math. Maths precision rests on an imprecise fundament that transcends math. But if that is the case, the only fundamental (in terms of things beyond math) result derived from math is that something imprecise beyond it is needed. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/COMP-is-empty%28-%29-tp32569717p32584434.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP is empty(?)
On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote: COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on computations. This is not correct. Comp is the assumption that the brain functions without extra magic, or that the brain is just a natural machine, like the heart or the liver. It might be false, but still is a widespread belief among rationalist since many centuries, and there are no sign that it might be refuted. Materialists are often using comp as a method to hide the mind-body problem. My own works shows that attempt to be incorrect, and I use comp to formulate precisely the mind body problem. Comp reduces indeed the mind-body problem to a purely mathematical body problem, and this makes comp a scientific (testable, refutable) hypothesis. But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no successor, successor remains undefined. All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories. Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also. But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely. But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything derived from it can mean anything. Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism. One might argue that even though 0 and successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something, It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions. which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is one more of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one more of the absence of something (which could mean anything). 1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its cardinal denotation. If you were true you could say that 2011 = 211. So even if we assume that COMP is correct, it is essentially empty, It is not empty to say yes to a doctor, for any operation proposed. because it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can just name the undefinedness of 0 as matter or consciousness, No, we can't. or prove it. What you say here is meaningless. I remind you that comp is the proposition that brain are sort of machines naturally emulating digital machine. This is accepted by all cogniyive scientist, and it makes sense. Indeed it might be false. and there we have the very same mystery we wanted to explain. No. It follows from comp that we have to derive physics from Number theory. This is a theorem, and not an assumption. Every computation could manifest itself in arbitrary ways... COMP itself says that actual 1- experience is related to an infinity of computations. Comp proves this, but does not assume this. That's even worse, so we have an infinity of undefined computations. Every computation (or infinite computations) can correspond to every (or none) experience, that is, ultimately COMP says nothing about experience. If it would, it had to give a mapping of computation (/infinite computations) to experiences... But since experience is ultimately not divisible in chunks of concrete, seperate experiences, this attempt is bound to fail. On the contrary, comp maps the experience with the internal brain(s) processes. It just happens that, like QM confirmed already, the brain matter appears to be multiplied and distributed, in a mathematically precise way, in the dovetailing on all computations. The notion of universality behind the universal dovetailing is the only universality on which all mathematician agree, unlike set or categories, or any other notion of universality. The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought construct which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly mean? For it to have any use we have to make a bet grounded on pure faith... So we could just as well believe in God, Why not if you make it enough precise so that people can see the scientific problem. usually God is used as an empty (indeed) answer. But with comp, both
Re: COMP is empty(?)
Just a little correction. I wrote (on 30 Sep 2011) : On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote: COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on computations. This is not correct. Comp is the assumption that the brain functions without extra magic, or that the brain is just a natural machine, like the heart or the liver. It might be false, but still is a widespread belief among rationalist since many centuries, and there are no sign that it might be refuted. Materialists are often using comp as a method to hide the mind-body problem. My own works shows that attempt to be incorrect, and I use comp to formulate precisely the mind body problem. Comp reduces indeed the mind-body problem to a purely mathematical body problem, and this makes comp a scientific (testable, refutable) hypothesis. But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no successor, successor remains undefined. All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories. Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also. But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely. But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything derived from it can mean anything. Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism. One might argue that even though 0 and successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something, It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions. which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is one more of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one more of the absence of something (which could mean anything). 1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its cardinal denotation. If you were true you could say that 2011 = 211. So even if we assume that COMP is correct, it is essentially empty, It is not empty to say yes to a doctor, for any operation proposed. because it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can just name the undefinedness of 0 as matter or consciousness, No, we can't. or prove it. What you say here is meaningless. I remind you that comp is the proposition that brain are sort of machines naturally emulating digital machine. This is accepted by all cogniyive scientist, and it makes sense. Indeed it might be false. and there we have the very same mystery we wanted to explain. No. It follows from comp that we have to derive physics from Number theory. This is a theorem, and not an assumption. Every computation could manifest itself in arbitrary ways... COMP itself says that actual 1- experience is related to an infinity of computations. Comp proves this, but does not assume this. That's even worse, so we have an infinity of undefined computations. Every computation (or infinite computations) can correspond to every (or none) experience, that is, ultimately COMP says nothing about experience. If it would, it had to give a mapping of computation (/infinite computations) to experiences... But since experience is ultimately not divisible in chunks of concrete, seperate experiences, this attempt is bound to fail. On the contrary, comp maps the experience with the internal brain(s) processes. It just happens that, like QM confirmed already, the brain matter appears to be multiplied and distributed, in a mathematically precise way, in the dovetailing on all computations. The notion of universality behind the universal dovetailing is the only universality on which all mathematician agree, unlike set or categories, or any other notion of universality. The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought construct which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly mean? For it to have any use we have to make a bet grounded on pure faith... So we could just as well believe in God, Why not if you make it enough precise so that people can see the scientific problem. usually God is
Re: COMP is empty(?)
On Sep 30, 11:26 am, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on computations. But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. They are sensorimotive phenomenology. Gestural essences experienced by a human psyche, communicated through laryngeal grunts or scratches in the sand, tracings of ink or graphite on bleached wood pulp, indexed binary registers embossed onto doped silicon, but ultimately decoded as circuits of sense: expectations strung out into elegant webs of refractory logics of satisfaction. They are hallucinations we can share with each other, and with inanimate objects selected for their precision of compliance. That is what numbers are. Sensemaking grooves which we share with other worlds. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
