Re: Could the incomplete portion of Godel's theorem be simply 1p ?
On 09 Nov 2012, at 13:32, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps no leap of faith is required to go from completeness to incompleteness (consciousness), if subject = 1p= the incomplete portion of a system consciousness = subject + object consciousness = the incomplete (me, 1p) + what remains (the object of perception) Perhaps. I can feel some insight, but you might be a bit quick here, in the terming. Consciousness does not ask for a leap of faith, indeed, but any content (and thus sense) of consciousness might need it. The "reality of consciousness" does not need faith, but the "consciousness of a reality" might need it. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/9/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 10:25:01 Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Stephan, > If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and > distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine > structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should > form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into > itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief- > Indra's Pearls. > > If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like > consciousness. > > However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go > from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says > C emerges naturally from comp. More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from elementary arithmetic, *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that the brain or the body can be Turing emulated at some right level so that you would remain conscious. Bruno > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Stephen P. King > Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM > Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > Time and space don't exist as substances so > they don't influence the monads, which as you say > are eternal. Further, there is no "substance space". > So the monads are not organized in any way. > The monads can be thought of as a collection > of an infinite number of mathematical points. > >> From dust we come and to dust we shall return. > > > Hi Roger, > > The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a > 'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean > algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other > monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that > the classical universe is "atoms in a void" as taught by Democritus. > http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html > > What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The > evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow > of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean > algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous > states. These two arrows face in opposite directions > > ... A => A' Stone space > | | > A*<=A*' Boolean algebra > > The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/8/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19 > Subject: Re: Communicability > > > On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the > views of all of the other monads in order to see > the whole, not from just one perspective. > > Hi Roger, > > Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't > agree > with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that > their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a > special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created > nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the > co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to > be an > eternal action and not a special one time action. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/7/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30 > Subject: Re: Communicability > > > On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman > for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an > actual woman ? > > Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates > for actual gold coins ? > > Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts
Could the incomplete portion of Godel's theorem be simply 1p ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps no leap of faith is required to go from completeness to incompleteness (consciousness), if subject = 1p= the incomplete portion of a system consciousness = subject + object consciousness = the incomplete (me, 1p) + what remains (the object of perception) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/9/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 10:25:01 Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Stephan, > If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and > distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine > structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should > form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into > itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief- > Indra's Pearls. > > If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like > consciousness. > > However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go > from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says > C emerges naturally from comp. More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from elementary arithmetic, *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that the brain or the body can be Turing emulated at some right level so that you would remain conscious. Bruno > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Stephen P. King > Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM > Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > Time and space don't exist as substances so > they don't influence the monads, which as you say > are eternal. Further, there is no "substance space". > So the monads are not organized in any way. > The monads can be thought of as a collection > of an infinite number of mathematical points. > >> From dust we come and to dust we shall return. > > > Hi Roger, > > The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a > 'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean > algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other > monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that > the classical universe is "atoms in a void" as taught by Democritus. > http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html > > What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The > evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow > of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean > algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous > states. These two arrows face in opposite directions > > ... A => A' Stone space > | | > A*<=A*' Boolean algebra > > The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/8/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19 > Subject: Re: Communicability > > > On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the > views of all of the other monads in order to see > the whole, not from just one perspective. > > Hi Roger, > > Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't > agree > with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that > their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a > special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created > nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the > co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to > be an > eternal action and not a special one time action. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/7/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30 > Subject: Re: Communicability > > > On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman > for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an > actual woman ? > > Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates > for actual gold coins ? > > Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ? > > It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers. > What > matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually > confirm what is "real". Why do you imagine that only humans can be > observers? > > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen >
