KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2008-12-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Abram, Him Kim, Kim, while answering Abram, I realised I was doing the KIM 2.3, you can read it before KIM 2.2 without problem I think, in any case tell me if you have follow the argument. I don't answer the questions, so you or Abram, or anyone else can answer. Abram, The answer to

Re: KIM 2.1

2008-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, On 20 Dec 2008, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote: Hmmm... My diagnostic is that you are suffering from an acute form of math-anxiety. I can cure that! Looks like I have to say Yes, Doctor again! Good! Tell me first if you have been once mentally or physically raped or

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2008-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
, not merely that it is a working one. :) I don't understand. I guess that I miss something here. Bruno On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Abram, Him Kim, Kim, while answering Abram, I realised I was doing the KIM 2.3, you can read it before

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2008-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
I wrote: Abram wrote --When I tell you my bet about which movie I will see, I am not minimizing the chance of being condemned to hell, I am minimizing the number of my copies that will be so carried. ? OK. I was distracted. To do this by altruism? And *you* (in your sense) you

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2008-12-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
is. That is perhaps why the meditation on the question who am I (cf Ramana Maharshi) can lead to the enlightenment. That is probably why in the eastern art of the war, people learns to not-decide, yet act. Bruno --Abram On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2008-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
the electrical impulses read in a brain system (NewScientist last ed.) Perhaps it is not too far from here to the thought that you and I might swap instantiations for a short time? Maybe it would be fun to think, walk, talk and act like Bruno Marchal, if only for 5 minutes. In fact, I would pay

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Dec 2008, at 16:41, Günther Greindl wrote: Kim, Bruno, Not at all. You have already done the first and last leap of faith of the reasoning when accepting the digital brain at the first step. I am aware that you are not aware of that, because in the reply you seem to believe

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that is governed by rules and has a definite description. Then Church thesis entails it is not broader,

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2008-12-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, On 25 Dec 2008, at 06:21, Kim Jones wrote: A bit of an end-of-year ramble. For the multi-lingual, illogically- minded, lateral thinkers: My last post was a bit self-destructive ramble as I am able to do once a time. But that's ok. (I hope I am not shocking). It is rather kind of

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Günther, On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:01, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every scientifically minded person. Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted? Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:10, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, But no weakening of comp based on nature is known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion. I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before on the

Re: Dharmas, type-F monism and COMP-OMs

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
to the doctor. If COMP leads to solipsism in the sense that only Bruno Marchal exists, then I will abandon comp. If COMP leads to solipsism in the sense that only the Universal Machine exists, then it will depends on what that could mean. I am not the one proposing a theory, I am the one showing

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2008, at 22:27, Kim Jones wrote: On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 22:27, Kim Jones wrote: On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
, Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting... unfortunately it is also very expensive. --Abram On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: POUR-EL M. B., RICHARD J. I., 1989, Computability in Analysis and Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2008-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine. To simulate it on a

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
: On 27/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: nd sometimes, even that is not enough, and you have to climb on the higher infinities. I think Kim was asking for an example of well- defined notions which are not effective. The existence of such non effective objects is not obvious at all

Re: Reality

2008-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
, the Mechanist hypothesis, or even just the strong AI thesis, is not a reductionism, it is an openness of our mind toward a peculiar Unknown which invites itself to our table. Bruno - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2008, at 20:50, Günther Greindl wrote: I agree with Bruno that all empirical evidence in this universe suggest that CT = PCT. But this need not be so, in a logical sense. Indeed. UDA shows that PCT is a mysterious, if not *the* mystery with CT. Logicaly, and a priori, CT

Re: Reality

2008-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
them, first this one: On Dec 27, 11:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ... Then I propose an argument that IF we say yes to the doctor, that is, IF there is a level of self-description such that a digital substitution preserves my identity feeling and my consciousness THEN numbers

KIM 2.2 and 2.3

2008-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, Still OK to continue? You are ready? Let me sum up so far. I suggest you look at the UDA slide. For those who don't have it, and want follow: it is the PDF slide of UDA[1 ... 8] in http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html In Kim 2.1 You agree

Re: KIM 2.2 and 2.3

2008-12-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
have that impression, but your next post put a slight doubt on that impression. Perhaps your partner understands better! I comment it below. --- On 28/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With Everett everything becomes clearer: nature does not collapse the wave

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA. In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes generating the Boltzmann brains. Now the probability that you are implemented by a

Re: KIM 2.1

2009-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Ronald, On 21 Dec 2008, at 15:40, Bruno Marchal wrote: How is there any mathematics with nothing to conceive of it? Let me try a straightest answer from math, with an example. Take the digital or discrete line. You can map it on the integers. It is the symmetrical extension

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Jan 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: It seems to me that your reasoning illustrates well the problems with physical supervenience and physicalism, and perhaps ASSA. In any case the Universal Dovetailer generates all such gaz universes generating

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:53, Brent Meeker wrote: The present moment in quantum cosmology: challenges to the arguments for the elimination of time Authors: Lee Smolin (Submitted on 29 Apr 2001) Abstract: Barbour, Hawking, Misner and others have argued that time cannot play an essential

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Günther, On 01 Jan 2009, at 23:58, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, I have also wanted to ask how you come to 2^aleph_zero Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but also on all non interacting

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2009-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Jan 2009, at 16:01, Abram Demski wrote: Hal, I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected! I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration by incompleteness... depending on

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

2009-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
effective way. Even ZF + strong infinity axioms cannot prove all arithmetical truth. All effective theory are arithmetically incomplete. Bruno --Abram On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2009, at 16:01, Abram Demski wrote: Hal, I

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
pattern, like we cannot define it, we cannot explain it that you can (with luck) recognize in the (more geometrical) marks. Bruno Marchal On 03 Jan 2009, at 06:46, Thomas Laursen wrote: If I understand the standard MWI right (with my layman brain) Abram Demski's view of time is very much

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Jan 2009, at 03:09, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Günther, Nice post! Coments soon. Speaking of Svozil's work, please see: Cristian S. Calude, Peter H. Hertling and Karl Svozil, ``Embedding Quantum Universes in Classical Ones'', Foundations of Physics 29(3), 349-390 (1999)

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Jan 2009, at 12:59, Kim Jones wrote: Bruno, In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience) the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary transmission interval) has

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
representable in Robinson arithmetic, or by a universal (in the sense of Church Turing) immaterial (number-theoretical) machine. Bruno On Jan 3, 10:39 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I disagree, and your remark singles out the problem with the bird's eye/frog view of Tegmark. Those

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Günther, I agree with your main point. My comments below concerns only details. On 03 Jan 2009, at 23:53, Günther Greindl wrote: Hi Bruno, first of all thanks for the long answer, and yes, it was very helpful. You described the production of all reals with a very vivid imagery; it

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
Abram, I agree with Brent. In relativity theory space and time are intermingled in a geometrical way to give the Minkowski structure. Actually you can make it into an Euclidian space by introducing an imaginary time t' = sqr(-1)*t = it. The metrics becomes dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + dt'^2. In

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Jan 2009, at 14:07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com: Thomas, If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember the past and not the future? Could a being

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
2009, at 12:51, Bruno Marchal wrote: Abram, I agree with Brent. In relativity theory space and time are intermingled in a geometrical way to give the Minkowski structure. Actually you can make it into an Euclidian space by introducing an imaginary time t' = sqr(-1)*t = it. The metrics becomes

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Jan 2009, at 20:18, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com: Thomas, If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember the past and not the

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Günther, On 07 Jan 2009, at 22:47, Günther Greindl wrote: thanks for your comments, I interleave my response. showed a glimpse of the vastness of the UD. And, I agree, _in the limit_ there will be an infinite number of histories. So, as we have to also take into account infinite

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
, it depends at which level we look at, and through which notion of person we make the observation, also. Thanks for an interesting reading. *I* thank you for your kind attention, Best, Bruno On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Jan

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Jan 2009, at 20:12, Günther Greindl wrote: Hi Bruno, and Cantor get a contradiction from that. You assume the diagram is indeed a piece of an existing bijection in Platonia, or known by God. No, you misunderstand me there - I just meant that we need to take the step to infinity -

Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Jan 2009, at 02:26, Kim Jones wrote: On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I admire too. Kim is courageous. Well, for the tenacity we will see :) Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am devoting an egregious amount of time to searching

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 11-janv.-09, à 17:55, Brent Meeker a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/11 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: I'm suggesting that running a state is incoherent. A machine running a program goes through a sequence of states. Consider 20 consecutive states, s1 to s20, which

Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
day, Bruno Le 11-janv.-09, à 16:54, Günther Greindl a écrit : Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers) Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks

Re: MGA 2

2009-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
with a quantum computer the really infinite counting algorithm by a purely unitary transformation? The one which generates without stopping 0, 1, 2, 3, ... That would already be a big help. Bruno (*) Marchal B., 2005, Theoretical computer science and the natural sciences, Physics of Life Reviews

Re: QM Turing Universality (was: MGA 2)

2009-01-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Jan 2009, at 17:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: Thank you for a quick answer! I'll take a look at it, my curiosity approves additional items on my TODO list :-) Manage keeping finite your todo list :) I have finished the reading of the paper I mentioned (Deutsch's Universal Quantum

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Jan 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/13 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: In human consciousness, as instantiated by brains, there is a process in which signal/information is not local, it is distributed in spacetime and is connected

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi John, On 14 Jan 2009, at 14:53, John Mikes wrote: Stathis: (from reply to Brent): I return to my question about what would happen if there were a discontinuity in a sequence of states,... There IS discontinuity if the state transits'(?) from s1 to s2. Do you have any idea how one can

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Jan 2009, at 18:40, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: However a Turing machine is not just a set of states, it also requires a set of transition rules. So in the same abstract way that the integers are

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Jan 2009, at 18:52, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2009/1/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: However a Turing machine is not just a set of states, it also requires a set of transition rules.

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-janv.-09, à 20:55, Brent Meeker a écrit : Stathis is not wrong but seems unclear on what a computation mathematically is perhaps. Many miss Church thesis. The fact that there is a purely mathematical notion of computation at all. I thought the Church's thesis was that all

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Jan 2009, at 22:50, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2009, at 18:40, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: snip in a computer program. But a computer program requires a computer to run

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Jan 2009, at 14:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/16 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: But both the electronic and the mechanical computer are implementing a process that is distributed in spacetime and has causal connections. Yes, and my claim is that the causal

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Jan 2009, at 22:04, Günther Greindl wrote: Hi all, the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-)) Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your technical work? Yes. The hypostases, with p restrict to the Sigma-1 sentences (the

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Jan 2009, at 07:52, Brent Meeker wrote: Günther Greindl wrote: Hi all, the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-)) Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your technical work? May I refer to the following two paragraphs?:

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 Jan 2009, at 06:38, Brent Meeker wrote: Are you stopping at UDA step 1? No. There's a difference between your idea of running a world and making a copy of me within this world. I think the latter will necessarily incur a gap in my consciousness because of the need to gather

Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 17 Jan 2009, at 04:10, fragamus (Michael Gough) wrote: I would like to ask the board: Are ALL possible quantum histories realized in the multiverse? I would say yes. Even as the superposition states of the vacuum. Note that all computational histories are in Arithmetic, or are

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 18-janv.-09, à 11:32, Kim Jones a écrit : On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are incompatible, though. Is that because, under materialism, consciousness depends on causal links? Brent supernatural causal

Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 18-janv.-09, à 16:23, A. Wolf a écrit : So you are saying the mass of the universe is infinite. I mean the number of particles is infinite (mass is a characteristic of some particles). It is still possible it could be finite but unbounded, and just extremely extremely large, but

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Jan 2009, at 13:56, Kim Jones wrote: But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism doesn't acknowledge any form of comp immateriality except according to the (probably) false mind/body dualism, where the mind is allowed to be an ethereal emanation of the

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Günther, The paper is not online, but I found it in this book which is at our University Library, maybe interesting also for other people: Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality

Re: QM Turing Universality

2009-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Mirek, Please be more specific about what do you mean by a quantum counting algorithm. Sometimes I'm not too bright guy :-) Really? Not here I think. The question *was* and *is* fuzzy. Is this what you mean? step 1\ |0 step 2\ |0 + |1 step 3\ |0 + |1 + |2

Re: Materialism was:Re: KIM 2.3

2009-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Jan 2009, at 05:22, Brent Meeker wrote: Günther Greindl wrote: snip The question is, why the quantum (as Wheeler, I think, put it)? Bruno's COMP gives a very elegant _explanation_. I agree it is elegant, but whether it can really explain the world remains to be seen. I am

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Jan 2009, at 05:46, Kim Jones wrote: OK. But keep in mind that consciousness is unique in the sense of knowing that it cannot know its Turing emulability level (yet can bet). Footnote - (parenthetical digression): I know the above thought is native to your schema, and up

Re: QM Turing Universality

2009-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Jan 2009, at 20:19, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum computation done without any measurement? Quantum lambda calculus by Andre van Tonder does not containt measurement. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0307150v5 From the

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Jan 2009, at 22:15, Kim Jones wrote: On 22/01/2009, at 3:50 AM, Günther Greindl wrote: Kim, the uncomputability of this issue. Why should the mind be limited to the computable? Clearly it is not. So you deny Step 1 again? You say no to the doctor? In fact I have 'multiple

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Jan 2009, at 13:21, Kim Jones wrote: Bruno, I found this an incredibly moving reply. I also see clearly your points. I am glad to have given you an opportunity to state so clearly some profoundly important ideas. Thank you, and let's continue the voyage. OK, thanks. ASAP (I am

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
I will think about it. Somehow, the best layman intro to UDA and AUDA are in this list. The first 15-step version of UDA was a reply to Russell Standish a long time ago. UDA is the logical guide to AUDA, which is just a deeper second pass on UDA. AUDA *is* UDA explained to the dummy, with

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Günther, AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or recursively enumerable theories, of machine. Those machines or theories must be rich enough. In practice this means their theorems or beliefs are close for induction.This is the work of Gödel and followers, notably

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Jan 2009, at 18:07, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. Rereading Conscience et Mécanisme I realize Russell Standish was right, and that book should be translated in english because it contains an almost complete (self-contained)

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Bruno Marchal wrote: Günther, AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or recursively enumerable theories, of machine. Those machines or theories must be rich enough. In practice this means their theorems or beliefs are close for induction.This is the work of Gödel

Re: UDA and interference of histories

2009-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi again Günther, Again a question for Bruno ;-) There are certain arguments (Deutsch, Wallace, Greaves) that propose that they can derive probabilites (and the Born rule) from decision theory - although I am not convinced (see for instance Price 2008 - http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1390).

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Quentin, I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on the movie hence physical supervenience is false. OK. It is a reductio ad absurdo. It assumes that consciousness supervenes on the physical

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Jan 2009, at 21:16, Pete Carlton wrote: What is wrong? In my opinion, it is that you are thinking that anything at all exists in addition to or supervening on the gates, or the movie, or the functions. I think you have a picture in your mind like this: let's say there are two

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Jan 2009, at 21:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/1/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be Hi Quentin, I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on the movie hence physical supervenience is false

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
John, Who is self-referencing, or even acknowledging self-reference? Gödel and All. It is a major discovery of the 20th century: a completely clear notion of third person self-reference. A first person self-reference theory follows naturally, accepting Theaetetus' definition of

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Jan 2009, at 16:29, Günther Greindl wrote: Hi Quentin, So when do the AI becomes a zombie when I run it relatively to me ? after how much stub subpart (I'm talking about function in a program, not about a physical computer on which the said program is run) have been replaced ?

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Mirek, I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on the list - so it was easy to translate. I am not so sure I can manage the

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Jan 2009, at 20:42, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Why would the movie graph rule out a notion of *computational* supervenience. We can keep comp and abandon materialism. We can still say yes to the digitalist doctor, by betting on our more probable relative computational histories.

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

2009-02-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
should be able to prosecute those who makes the *same* error again, and again, and again, and again, ... (generally to rise fear about something or someone or somepeople). Best regards, Bruno On 31 Jan 2009, at 03:20, Kim Jones wrote: On 31/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-02-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Jan 2009, at 12:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Ok then for the particular run I describe, the two programs (the original and the one modified by stub subpart) have the same states... So for this particular run, we should still accept that the stub modified program is conscious

Re: Movie graph and computational supervenience

2009-02-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Feb 2009, at 18:20, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jan 2009, at 12:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Ok then for the particular run I describe, the two programs (the original and the one modified by stub subpart) have the same states... So for this particular run

The Seventh Step (Preamble)

2009-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, Still interested? I must say I was wrong. I cannot explain to you the functioning of a computer without doing math. Orally, drawing on a black board, I would have been able to explain a big part of it, and simultaneously hiding the mathematics. But I realize now that even this

Re: Templeton Foundation

2009-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
And your namesake, Giordano Bruno. Brent (among others) also helped to prepare the terrain for this 'desanthropomorphisation' process. Embedding the subject into the object of study. Embedding the spectator in the spectacles, as the Hindu says. - Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal

Re: The Seventh Step (Preamble)

2009-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, I have not the time to think deeply on zero, so I will answer your last post instead :) On 05 Feb 2009, at 12:30, Kim Jones wrote: On 05/02/2009, at 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Kim, Still interested? I must say I was wrong. Only a scientist admits he can be wrong

Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]

2009-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-févr.-09, à 12:06, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Hi, 2009/2/6 russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au He also mentions Tegmark's amoeba croaks argument, which is not actually an argument against QI, but rather a discussion of what QI might actually mean. Contrary to what some people

Re: Bruno's Brussels Thesis English Version Chap 1 (trial translation)

2009-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Feb 2009, at 04:47, Kim Jones wrote: (see Broukère 1982), It is (see de Brouckère 1982) Note the c, and the de. Phenomena of genetic regulation with regard to mechanism are eloquent [elegant?=poss. error:] Kim) It is eloquent (indeed). Perhaps it would be clearer to say:

Re: briefly wading back into the fray

2009-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Feb 2009, at 19:05, Jack Mallah wrote: Bruno is still pushing his crackpot UDA. What is it that you (still) don't understand? (good idea to resume UDA again, and so the question is asked also to the newbies). Please help yourself by printing the PDF slide 1) The (re)definition

Re: briefly wading back into the fray re: UDA

2009-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Jack, On 09 Feb 2009, at 18:19, Jack Mallah wrote: --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: good idea to resume UDA again Bruno, I will post on the subject - but not yet. I do not want to get sidetracked from improving my paper. I guess you understand that I do

Re: adult vs. child

2009-02-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/2/10 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com: This sort of talk about random sampling and luck is misleading and is exactly why I broke down the roles of effective probability into the four categories I did in

Re: Bruno's Brussels Thesis English Version Chap 1 (trial translation)

2009-02-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Kim, Thanks for the corrections - not only did I improve my understanding of the thesis in closely translating the language, but had enormous fun! I am up to the diagrammatic part and will stop here for the time being, to catch my breath and also to try and understand the Jaques

Re: adult vs. child

2009-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Feb 2009, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/2/10 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com: This sort of talk about random sampling and luck is misleading and is exactly why I broke down

Re: adult vs. child

2009-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
of The Seattle Seven? - Mmm. - That was me... and six other guys. 2009/2/10 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/2/10 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com

Re: Bruno's Brussels Thesis English Version Chap 1 (trial translation)

2009-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Feb 2009, at 00:48, Günther Greindl wrote: Kim, Günther recommends recently the book Eveything Must Go by Ladyman et al. This looks like heavy going but seems like a good and a relevant tome to get into, possibly circling around the mechanist idea. Do you also recommend it? The

The Seventh Step 1 (Numbers and Notations)

2009-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, I told you that to grasp the seventh step we have to do some little amount of math. Now math is a bit like consciousness or time, we know very well what it is, but we cannot really define it, and such an encompassing definition can depend on the philosophical view you can have on

Re: adult vs. child

2009-02-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Feb 2009, at 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2009, at 00:38, Günther Greindl wrote: I'm with Mike and Brent. Bruno, giving A1 and A2 mirrors which would show different stuff violates Stathis' assumption of running the _same_ computation - you can't go

Re: Dreams and measure

2009-02-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Saibal Mitra wrote: Welcome back Jack Mallah! I have a different argument against QTI. I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended. Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the QTI, the life expectancy of the

Re: Dreams and measure

2009-02-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Feb 2009, at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: Saibal Mitra wrote: Welcome back Jack Mallah! I have a different argument against QTI. I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended. Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the QTI, the life

Re: adult vs. child

2009-02-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Feb 2009, at 22:19, Brent Meeker wrote: This idea seems inconsistent with MWI. In QM the split is uncaused so it's hard to see why its influence extends into the past and increases the measure of computations that were identical before the split. I got the inspiration from

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >