Re: Flies and ultimate reality
On 25 Dec 2012, at 04:10, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/24/2012 7:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 3:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Roger, Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to have a mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience. I have two eyes and no problem unifying them. Vision takes place in the brain, not the eyes. Brent -- Hi Brent, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Apparently. You are basing this impossibility on a literal infinity - not just very very many? In that case I'd agree because the literal infinity is itself impossible. Brent -- Pfft, really? Oh my, you are hard up to save an obviously false idea! If the infinity is merely potential, the situation is worse! Think about it, how many different 1p are *possible*? Many, at least! I submit to you that the number must be infinite. This would be equivalent to an infinite number of propositions. The number of human 1p is infinite if you let the human skull growing arbitrarily. It should be obvious that to find a SAT solution to such is impossible for any classical system. SAT is Sigma_0. SAT is decidable. We can find all the SAT solutions, if patient enough. No doubt that it can take some time to see if a classical propositional formula with 10^1000 propositional variables is a tautology. P = NP would not necessarily help, because the polynomial bounding complexity can be quite growing if it has big coefficient. For biology and theology the interesting things happens on the border of the Sigma_1 complete structures. Only bankers and engineers really need to talk the Sigma_0, and subtractability issues. By comp, we will have to derive why, from the geometry and topology of the border of the Sigma_1, seen in 1p. UDA and AUDA illustrates that the border get his geometry and topology from self-reference, starting from sigma_1 sentences (which represent in arithmetic the UD states). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to 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: Flies and ultimate reality
On 12/24/2012 11:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King IMHO Only the Supreme Monad (the One, God), and perhaps flies to some extent can clearly see ultimate reality, which means from all perspectives at once. How do flies unify their vision ? Dear Roger, Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to have a mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience. We ourselves are incapable of that, we can only see reality only from our perspective, and with some distortions. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/24/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 12:59:35 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett rightafter all ? On 12/22/2012 7:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: We defeat Dennett by showing that the regress cannot occur when there are physical resources required by the computations for each level of the recursion. We can cutoff recursions in our algorithms with code: if count of loops is 10, stop. But physical systems can not count, they just run out of juice after a while Yes. For example, in the simulation argument, you still end up having to have an ultimate reality which is no longer a simulation. Hi Telmo, Why? Why does there need to be a ultimate reality that is some kind of irreducible ground? It is unnecessary to postulate such if we look at things from a non-well founded or Net of Indra point of view. Any set of objects can act as a ground for some other, objects are, ultimately, just bundles of relatively stable persistent properties. This way of thinking is very different from the atoms in a void view... But if there is no display, we do not need an observer self, and are possibly ending up with Michael Dennett's materialist concept of the self. This might be called epi-phenominalism. The self is simply an expression of the brain. I don't believe it is just an expression of the brain (I suspect you don't either), but part of the reason why I don't believe is 1p, so I cannot communicate it (can I?). I don't know. I tried at dinner parties and got funny looks. I do think that the consciousness is an expression of the brain *and* all of its environment that molds its behavior. It is silly to think that skin is the boundary that a mind associates with! Agreed. OK! ;-) We cannot forget causal closure in our reasoning about 1p! Telmo, can't you see that the defining characteristic of 1p is that one cannot communicate it? I can. Only I can know exactly what it is like to be me. So I can infer or bet that you have a what it is like to be Telmo but I cannot know it, by definition and this relation is symmetrical between any pair of conscious entities. Ok, but why shouldn't I just believe in solipsism then? Because solipsism is self-contradictory, we can believe in it tacitly, but once we think of yourself actively, it falls apart as a theory. Even the self that one was previously, that one can recollect or remember, is not oneself now. The self v other relation actively denies solipsism, and yet we cannot have certainty of what we cannot directly experience. The trick is to understand that we can only have certainty of our own experience of self-in-the-moment, as Descartes explained so well in Meditations. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Flies and ultimate reality
On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Roger, Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to have a mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience. I have two eyes and no problem unifying them. Vision takes place in the brain, not the eyes. Brent -- 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: Flies and ultimate reality
On 12/24/2012 3:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Roger, Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to have a mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience. I have two eyes and no problem unifying them. Vision takes place in the brain, not the eyes. Brent -- Hi Brent, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Apparently. You are basing this impossibility on a literal infinity - not just very very many? In that case I'd agree because the literal infinity is itself impossible. Brent -- 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.
