Re: Non unique Universe
On Jul 5, 9:44 pm, thermo thermo therm...@gmail.com wrote: hi, I am not very much into string theory but i liked the paper, it was pretty much self-contained for me, a computer-scientist, . On the other side, It seems that the main conclusions are extracted from the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and not from Godel Incompleteness theorem. So the abstract is a little sleight of hand and, possibly, misleading. And even then, I don't think he uses the Löwenheim–Skolem properly. I don't think the cardinality of a model is the same as the cardinalities which the model employs. Tom Regards, José. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim%E2%80%93Skolem_theorem On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:30 AM, ronaldheldronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
hi, I am not very much into string theory but i liked the paper, it was pretty much self-contained for me, a computer-scientist, . On the other side, It seems that the main conclusions are extracted from the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and not from Godel Incompleteness theorem. So the abstract is a little sleight of hand and, possibly, misleading. Regards, José. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim%E2%80%93Skolem_theorem On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:30 AM, ronaldheldronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
On 03 Jul 2009, at 19:07, Brent Meeker wrote:
Right. I have no problem with arithmetical possibilities,
provability,
etc. But without some defined scope the use of possible makes me
uneasy. In modal logic possible and necessary are just operators
that must be interpreted in some domain; just like some and for
all.
OK.
I've never seen { and } denoted accolades but I like it; they
are
more commonly called braces. I don't know a specific term for [
and ], I generally refer to them as square brackets.
OK. I think accolade is kind of formal hug, but in french it is a
punctuation mark see
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accolade
So Accolade in fench is brace in english, I will try to remember, but
if you like accolades ... Natural languages are living things and I am
all for exchange of words between languages ...
Thanks for the info,
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: Non unique Universe
On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:48, Brian Tenneson wrote: Thanks. How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence hypothesis fit or not fit into this? It fits well, I mean better than anythings else (except perhaps Wheeler), but yet ... not so well. What is common, is the open- mindness toward mathematicalism. First mathematical existence is a very encompassing notion, which usually leads to contradiction when made precise. Secondly, the UD reasoning should make clear that physical existence is not just the view from inside some mathematical structure. The first person indeterminacy delocalize the observers (universal mathematical machines) in infinities of mathematical structures. So the physical existence is more a form of modal notion, involving many mathematical beings, and capable to be explained, from self-reference and a (tiny) part of arithmetic. Physics emerges from how numbers are seeing each other, taking into account that numbers cannot know which number there are. If you know the work of Tegmark, you will easily see the difference by studying the UD proof. Then the Arithmetical version of the UDA, which I call AUDA, shows exactly how physical interactions and physical sensation arise in the mind or discourse of the self-observing universal (arithmetical) machine. Thirdly, well, I already mentioned the emergence of the physical sensation. What is nice, but relies on some mathematical logic, is that the way UDA+AUDA proceeds, we get a theory of both quanta and qualia, together with an explanation of the gap between third person proof and first person knowledge, an explanation of the role of consciousness (relative self-speeding up), etc. I guess opportunities to make all this clearer will happen. If you read the papers, you can ask any questions, of course. The key idea is the first person indeterminacy. It is the basic building concept which drives the whole reasoning. One day I will write some book, or large paper, but I need more feedback. Up to now, I heard about critics, but I have never succeeded to be confronted to them. Most misunderstanding comes from the ignorance of logic and of the math I am using, but also by the usual disinterest of many scientist in the fundamental of philosophy of mind. The subject is of course rather difficult, and intrinsically transdisciplinary. yet, only the very basic notions of the disciplines crossed need to be known, but there is a huge gap between cognitive science/philosophy of mind, physics, and mathematical logic which needs to be filled. The work has been rejected in Brussels, by people having none of those expertise, and has been defended as a PhD thesis in France without any trouble, despite some of the members of the jury were a bit unease by the admittedly rather big change in perspective it leads too. Which I can understand, but I must admit that I have underestimated the attachment of modern scientists to Aristotle theology. This simply does not work, once we take the Comp. Hyp. seriously enough, meaning: without eliminating the person or its conscious sensations and perceptions. 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: Non unique Universe
On 02 Jul 2009, at 21:37, Brent Meeker wrote: John Mikes wrote: Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: /In modern cosmology, a / /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes/ that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I assume does NOT include lots of 'possibles' in the scientific(?) mindset 1000 years hence. I find the position a 'present-day restricted' reductionist approach adjusted into our 2009(or earlier?) cognitive inventory of physics. In rigorous science I could not do better, but is it a position you would really deem a a very interesting read? JohnM I agree with JM. Whenever I read the word possible I feel the intellectual ground shift and I look for a hand hold in case it turns to quicksand. That is why we are invited to dig a bit in modal logic, which is a tool for making the reasoning on possibilities more solid. But then, with the comp hyp, we are lead to the arithmetical possibilities, which can be made transparently clear. Like George Boolos explains in his 1979, and 1993 books, the critics by Quine and Marcus on modal logics, just does not work for the arithmetical possibility, which is consistency (or the arithmetical necessity, which is provability). 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: Non unique Universe
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jul 2009, at 21:37, Brent Meeker wrote: John Mikes wrote: Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: /In modern cosmology, a / /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes/ that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I assume does NOT include lots of 'possibles' in the scientific(?) mindset 1000 years hence. I find the position a 'present-day restricted' reductionist approach adjusted into our 2009(or earlier?) cognitive inventory of physics. In rigorous science I could not do better, but is it a position you would really deem a a very interesting read? JohnM I agree with JM. Whenever I read the word possible I feel the intellectual ground shift and I look for a hand hold in case it turns to quicksand. That is why we are invited to dig a bit in modal logic, which is a tool for making the reasoning on possibilities more solid. But then, with the comp hyp, we are lead to the arithmetical possibilities, which can be made transparently clear. Like George Boolos explains in his 1979, and 1993 books, the critics by Quine and Marcus on modal logics, just does not work for the arithmetical possibility, which is consistency (or the arithmetical necessity, which is provability). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Right. I have no problem with arithmetical possibilities, provability, etc. But without some defined scope the use of possible makes me uneasy. In modal logic possible and necessary are just operators that must be interpreted in some domain; just like some and for all. 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Non unique Universe
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read. ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: *In modern cosmology, a **multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes* that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I assume does NOT include lots of 'possibles' in the scientific(?) mindset 1000 years hence. I find the position a 'present-day restricted' reductionist approach adjusted into our 2009(or earlier?) cognitive inventory of physics. In rigorous science I could not do better, but is it a position you would really deem a a very interesting read? JohnM On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read. ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
Well to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, a way to modify the statement's wording might be: In modern cosmology, a multiverse is defined to be a collection of all physical universes consistent with the laws of physics, whatever those might be. That leaves room for physics revising itself over the next 1,000 years. I'm interested to see how this is received by physicists. I read it and it's not nearly as technical as I thought it would be after reading the abstract. This paper seems to heavily rest on Tegmark's ME=PE hypothesis in that non-isomorphic models give rise to different universes is a really abstract thing to say about physics; I would surmise a physicist who rejects ME=PE would totally dismiss this paper outright. I know almost nothing of physics so it might not matter that I'm willing to accept the ME=PE hypothesis. John Mikes wrote: Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: /In modern cosmology, a / /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes/ that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I assume does NOT include lots of 'possibles' in the scientific(?) mindset 1000 years hence. I find the position a 'present-day restricted' reductionist approach adjusted into our 2009(or earlier?) cognitive inventory of physics. In rigorous science I could not do better, but is it a position you would really deem a a very interesting read? JohnM On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com mailto:tenn...@gmail.com wrote: If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read. ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory). The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his unconscious use of the identity thesis in the philosophy of mind (alias cognitive science). Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? 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: Non unique Universe
I'm ignorant of what you mean by mind body problem. Can you explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? Thanks. Bruno Marchal wrote: I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory). The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his unconscious use of the identity thesis in the philosophy of mind (alias cognitive science). Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? 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: Non unique Universe
The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion, which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science. In a nutshell, it is the problem of how a qualitative experiential feeling of consciousness can be associated with third personal object relations. How a grey brain makes us feel color, if you want. And then it touches question like does consciousness have a role?, is there a first person death, etc. You can Google on it on the web, but in this list we are far in advance :) Most people still believe simultaneously in MECHANISM, and WEAK MATERIALISM (the idea that stuffy matter exists). My point is that iMECHANISM and MATERIALISM (or PHYSICALISM) are epistemologically incompatible. Mech + Mater. leads to person eliminativism. Mech itself leads, by UDA, to a material appearance emerging from infinite sum of purely mathematical computations. UDA shows that computationalism leads to refutable facts, and one of my main point is that computationalism (or digital mechanism) is empirically testable, and indeed confirmed (not proved!) in his most startling features by quantum mechanics. Digitalism makes the mind-body problem a throughly scientific problem. It is the least I want to show. Read the paper here if you want save your time: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Those results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many intuitions discussed in this list. Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote: I'm ignorant of what you mean by mind body problem. Can you explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? Thanks. Bruno Marchal wrote: I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory). The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his unconscious use of the identity thesis in the philosophy of mind (alias cognitive science). Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 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: Non unique Universe
Thanks. How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence hypothesis fit or not fit into this? Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion, which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science. In a nutshell, it is the problem of how a qualitative experiential feeling of consciousness can be associated with third personal object relations. How a grey brain makes us feel color, if you want. And then it touches question like does consciousness have a role?, is there a first person death, etc. You can Google on it on the web, but in this list we are far in advance :) Most people still believe simultaneously in MECHANISM, and WEAK MATERIALISM (the idea that stuffy matter exists). My point is that iMECHANISM and MATERIALISM (or PHYSICALISM) are epistemologically incompatible. Mech + Mater. leads to person eliminativism. Mech itself leads, by UDA, to a material appearance emerging from infinite sum of purely mathematical computations. UDA shows that computationalism leads to refutable facts, and one of my main point is that computationalism (or digital mechanism) is empirically testable, and indeed confirmed (not proved!) in his most startling features by quantum mechanics. Digitalism makes the mind-body problem a throughly scientific problem. It is the least I want to show. Read the paper here if you want save your time: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Those results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many intuitions discussed in this list. Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote: I'm ignorant of what you mean by mind body problem. Can you explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? Thanks. Bruno Marchal wrote: I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory). The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his unconscious use of the identity thesis in the philosophy of mind (alias cognitive science). Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf comments? http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Non unique Universe
John Mikes wrote: Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: /In modern cosmology, a / /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes/ that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I assume does NOT include lots of 'possibles' in the scientific(?) mindset 1000 years hence. I find the position a 'present-day restricted' reductionist approach adjusted into our 2009(or earlier?) cognitive inventory of physics. In rigorous science I could not do better, but is it a position you would really deem a a very interesting read? JohnM I agree with JM. Whenever I read the word possible I feel the intellectual ground shift and I look for a hand hold in case it turns to quicksand. 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
