Re: NOT YET THE ROADMAP
Hi John, Le 10-août-06, à 17:52, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > Bruno, > > I liked what George Levy wrote (19 July 2006): > >> As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything >> using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP >> which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.< Mmh... OK, but comp is just the daughter of the old mechanist philosophy, which appears already in "The question of Milinda", an old Greco-buddhist text I love so much. Comp makes "mechanism" more mathematical by its insistence on digitalness, and that indeed makes it easier to reason mathematically. Then comp can help to tackle mathematically "not-comp" (and that is how I found that all the G-G* stuff remains correct and even complete for much weaker version of "comp": it works for a vast class of "angels" (machine with actual infinite reasoning abilities) and even "gods", for which G and G* remains correct (but no more complete) and even on many supergods etc. Only the big unameable one seems to escape the limitation of self-reference, but only by loosing those self-reference abilities. Here I am very close to Ennead V 6 where Plotinus criticizes the attribution of thought to the "first God" (Plato's one or Good). > A bit lesser the continuation: >> I came up independently with my own concept involving a >> generalization of relativity to information theory ( my background is >> engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points. >> Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my >> ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it >> feels right.< > because engineering and physics (as we know them from past times) are > also > based on mathematical logic - (if not on straightforward math!) and > that > puts George in a similar basket with you (No peiorative tone intended, > or > involved!) > To your advice to seek a mathematician (as gossip has it: Einstein > relied on > the math-help of Goedel): it would serve to "anchor" George into YOUR > basket > (sorry George, I believe you are way above such fallibilities as to be > 'anchored'). > Why not consult (and not just educate into YOUR ways) somebody with a > different view (background thinking?) from the rigorous mathematical > concepts? > I still believe that there is more than just 'numbers' and processes > in the > existence with different basis than just comp. > > I don't believe you can "PROVE" that there is nothing else but > "math-numbers-comp", unless you call "all other possibilities" with > such > NAMES. It is NOTmy goal to prove that there is nothing else but numbers and their relation. But I do pretend indeed that ONCE we *assume* comp, then the existence of something else is undecidable, and physics + psychology can be explained from numbers, and, indeed that the comp constraints on physics are such that they makes comp testable (refutable). > Name-calling is futile. "I can arrive there in a 'little zillion' > steps" is fairy tale - without at least some details on the 'HOWs'. > (Old > cliche: the validity of a legal argument). Name-calling "per se" is worse than futile, it is a nuisance. Unnecessary jargon slows progress and can even accelerate regress. > > I still wait impatiently for your 'roadmap' communications and > preserve my > mind to accept it as maybe proving me wrong. As I told you many times, I am not sure you are wrong at all. The difference between me and you is that you take into account the "human limitations", and I take into account the vaster "machine limitations" (those are "vaster" because I *assume* comp, and so humans are machine and humans inherits machine's limitations). Such limitations are mathematically non trivial (that's the Post Turing Markov Godel ... discovery), and that is what I exploit. The worst situation for you would be that I eventually prove comp wrong, in which case I will have less reason to believe what you say (having then no more clues on *our* limitations). Thanks for telling me you are waiting impatiently the roadmap. I progress. Don't expect too much in the sense that, as an ancient list participant you will see I will not add things which I have not already explain more than one time on this list (and in my papers). Actually I will try to say less (that is the difficulty), and to take into account the last conversations. And to recall acronym as people regularly asks me out of line. > I hope I will not miss them in > the maze of posts now swarming this list - really beyond my reading > capabilities. I would love to watch (and find) a 'subject' preserved > for > YOUR line eg as: "ROADMAP" with nobody just clicking 'Reply' to make > posts > as the same subject 350 times. This is hardly avoidable, at least until we clearly agree on our disagreements (at least). Also I find those last conversations rather interesting. They do clarify the disagreements i
Re: NOT YET THE ROADMAP
Bruno, I liked what George Levy wrote (19 July 2006): > As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything > using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP > which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.< A bit lesser the continuation: > I came up independently with my own concept involving a > generalization of relativity to information theory ( my background is > engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points. > Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my > ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it > feels right.< because engineering and physics (as we know them from past times) are also based on mathematical logic - (if not on straightforward math!) and that puts George in a similar basket with you (No peiorative tone intended, or involved!) To your advice to seek a mathematician (as gossip has it: Einstein relied on the math-help of Goedel): it would serve to "anchor" George into YOUR basket (sorry George, I believe you are way above such fallibilities as to be 'anchored'). Why not consult (and not just educate into YOUR ways) somebody with a different view (background thinking?) from the rigorous mathematical concepts? I still believe that there is more than just 'numbers' and processes in the existence with different basis than just comp. I don't believe you can "PROVE" that there is nothing else but "math-numbers-comp", unless you call "all other possibilities" with such NAMES. Name-calling is futile. "I can arrive there in a 'little zillion' steps" is fairy tale - without at least some details on the 'HOWs'. (Old cliche: the validity of a legal argument). I still wait impatiently for your 'roadmap' communications and preserve my mind to accept it as maybe proving me wrong. I hope I will not miss them in the maze of posts now swarming this list - really beyond my reading capabilities. I would love to watch (and find) a 'subject' preserved for YOUR line eg as: "ROADMAP" with nobody just clicking 'Reply' to make posts as the same subject 350 times. Grandmotherishly yours John M - Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:59 AM Subject: NOT YET THE ROADMAP You should perhaps try to find a mathematician in your neighborhood for helping you to formalize a bit your approach. I can give you book advices on information theory if you are interested. Unfortunately the relation between information theory and logic are not so easy. I know that Abramski works on it, and Devlin wrote a book on information in some logician sense (this is not yet standard), you could search "Devlin" on Amazon for the reference. In this setting quantum information theory is also hard to avoid. There are many good books too. <- Skipped: Copied above -> > > I believe that what you are saying is right, however I am having > some trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would > help if you outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the > roadmap without having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at > every turn even though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am > sure. For example you could use several levels of explanation: a first > level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second > level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to > your colleagues. BM: Like I just said to Stathis, I have some difficulties. But this is really because I want that roadmap post to be comprehensible by the grandmother. Thanks for being patient, Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
NOT YET THE ROADMAP
George Levy wrote (19 July 2006): > As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything > using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP > which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic. > > I came up independently with my own concept involving a > generalization of relativity to information theory ( my background is > engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points. > Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my > ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it > feels right. You should perhaps try to find a mathematician in your neighborhood for helping you to formalize a bit your approach. I can give you book advices on information theory if you are interested. Unfortunately the relation between information theory and logic are not so easy. I know that Abramski works on it, and Devlin wrote a book on information in some logician sense (this is not yet standard), you could search "Devlin" on Amazon for the reference. In this setting quantum information theory is also hard to avoid. There are many good books too. > > I believe that what you are saying is right, however I am having > some trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would > help if you outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the > roadmap without having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at > every turn even though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am > sure. For example you could use several levels of explanation: a first > level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second > level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to > your colleagues. Like I just said to Stathis, I have some difficulties. But this is really because I want that roadmap post to be comprehensible by the grandmother. Thanks for being patient, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Bruno I'm glad you follow. As I've indicated, I've been inventing this grisly teminology 'on the fly' in the attempt to make clearer some distinctions that I didn't feel were explicit enough, and I've probably found the process at least as irksome as others trying to follow it. Colin's version is more succint though it will be interesting to see how he defends it in detail. Hopefully, your roadmap will supersede my jargon, and we can express future exchanges in terms of this. Lets see. David --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Le 08-août-06, à 17:00, David Nyman a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf >> Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just >> G >> handled with care); > > Bruno > > Thanks for the summary, I'll look out for the roadmap. I'd just like > to clarify the role of FP2 above: > > Where FP1i is an individual first-person-as-instantiated, FP2 is its > analog in what I've termed the 'shareable knowledge base' (SKB) that is > part of the structure of FP1i. The reason I make this distinction is > that when I make some unqualified reference simply to 'Bruno', it is > not thereby clear whether this is meant to indicate 'FP2 Bruno' - i.e > the representation you or I have of 'Bruno' in the SKB - or 'FP1 > Bruno', the unique entity to which my FP2 analog refers. In > inter-personal dialogue, this can become really confusing because one > party may be conceptualising in an FP2-manner - i.e. thinking in a > 'naturalistic' way purely in terms of the FP2 representation of the > world and its embedded FP2 representations of first persons - when the > other (usually me, I must confess) is thinking in an FP1-manner - i.e. > extrapolating from the FP2 representations to their FP1 referents. Such > confusion may be implicated in 'Chalmers' delusion' and other puzzles. > I say something about this in my comments on your earlier posts. > > To be consistent, what I'm calling FP2 should be split along the lines > of FP1 into: > > FP2g - representations in the SKB of FP1g > FP2i - representations in the SKB of FP1i > > Does the above clarification make a difference? I still believe I can follow you, but I fear your vocabulary/acronym proliferation. I will not add comments, because those would be anticipation on critics you will do (no doubt) about the (future) "roadmap post". But thanks for trying to be clear and for being patient about that roadmap, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Bruno Marchal wrote: > FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf > Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just G > handled with care); Bruno Thanks for the summary, I'll look out for the roadmap. I'd just like to clarify the role of FP2 above: Where FP1i is an individual first-person-as-instantiated, FP2 is its analog in what I've termed the 'shareable knowledge base' (SKB) that is part of the structure of FP1i. The reason I make this distinction is that when I make some unqualified reference simply to 'Bruno', it is not thereby clear whether this is meant to indicate 'FP2 Bruno' - i.e the representation you or I have of 'Bruno' in the SKB - or 'FP1 Bruno', the unique entity to which my FP2 analog refers. In inter-personal dialogue, this can become really confusing because one party may be conceptualising in an FP2-manner - i.e. thinking in a 'naturalistic' way purely in terms of the FP2 representation of the world and its embedded FP2 representations of first persons - when the other (usually me, I must confess) is thinking in an FP1-manner - i.e. extrapolating from the FP2 representations to their FP1 referents. Such confusion may be implicated in 'Chalmers' delusion' and other puzzles. I say something about this in my comments on your earlier posts. To be consistent, what I'm calling FP2 should be split along the lines of FP1 into: FP2g - representations in the SKB of FP1g FP2i - representations in the SKB of FP1i Does the above clarification make a difference? David > Le 07-août-06, à 22:12, David Nyman a écrit : > > > > 1) FP1g - primitive 'global' first person entity or context > > 2) FP1i - individual person delimited by primitive differentiation > > (which is agnostic to comp, physics, or anything else at this logical > > level) > > 3) FP2 - narrative references to first persons, as in 'David is a first > > person', an attribution, as opposed to 'David-as-first-person', a > > unique entity. > > 4) TP - third person, or structure-read-as-information, as opposed to > > structure-demarcating-an-entity > > > > OK, I copy this in some file so as to be able to come back on it later. > If I comment it here, before the "roadmap-summary", it will be > confusing. Still, before I send the "roadmap" I give the correspondence > for those who have followed your posts and remember my earlier > summaries. > > FP1g will most probably correspond to the "time/knowledge" modal logic > S4Grz; > FP1i will not be explicitly treated, but can correspond to any > particular relative implementation of a self-referentially correct > machine. Then S4Grz will still work, but its arithmetical > interpretations can vary; > FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf > Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just G > handled with care); > TP: will correspond to the G and G* logic of arithmetical reference, > including self-reference. Of course the dissociation of the > corresponding logics into G and G* (and the non-dissociation of the 1 > person logic S4Grz = S4Grz*, is a key phenomenon which is forced by the > incompleteness phenomenon. G corresponds to the provable > self-referential statements and G* will correspond to the true > self-referential statements. That the set of true statements minus the > set of provable statements (that is G* \ G) is not empty is due to > Godel incompleteness. > > But there are other hypostases (person pov): the 0-person pov (More or > less Nagel's pov from nowhere) which can be just "arithmetical truth" > with the comp. hyp. It plays the role of the neoplatonist "ONE" in the > arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus's hypostases. > Then there is the "matter" or "1-plural-pov" where "matter" becomes > apparent ... > > I will try to present a roadmap tomorrow or the day after. In the > meantime you could consult my SANE paper: > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ > SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > You can also download the UDA slides for reference to its 8 steps > presentation. > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Le 07-août-06, à 22:12, David Nyman a écrit : > 1) FP1g - primitive 'global' first person entity or context > 2) FP1i - individual person delimited by primitive differentiation > (which is agnostic to comp, physics, or anything else at this logical > level) > 3) FP2 - narrative references to first persons, as in 'David is a first > person', an attribution, as opposed to 'David-as-first-person', a > unique entity. > 4) TP - third person, or structure-read-as-information, as opposed to > structure-demarcating-an-entity OK, I copy this in some file so as to be able to come back on it later. If I comment it here, before the "roadmap-summary", it will be confusing. Still, before I send the "roadmap" I give the correspondence for those who have followed your posts and remember my earlier summaries. FP1g will most probably correspond to the "time/knowledge" modal logic S4Grz; FP1i will not be explicitly treated, but can correspond to any particular relative implementation of a self-referentially correct machine. Then S4Grz will still work, but its arithmetical interpretations can vary; FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just G handled with care); TP: will correspond to the G and G* logic of arithmetical reference, including self-reference. Of course the dissociation of the corresponding logics into G and G* (and the non-dissociation of the 1 person logic S4Grz = S4Grz*, is a key phenomenon which is forced by the incompleteness phenomenon. G corresponds to the provable self-referential statements and G* will correspond to the true self-referential statements. That the set of true statements minus the set of provable statements (that is G* \ G) is not empty is due to Godel incompleteness. But there are other hypostases (person pov): the 0-person pov (More or less Nagel's pov from nowhere) which can be just "arithmetical truth" with the comp. hyp. It plays the role of the neoplatonist "ONE" in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus's hypostases. Then there is the "matter" or "1-plural-pov" where "matter" becomes apparent ... I will try to present a roadmap tomorrow or the day after. In the meantime you could consult my SANE paper: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html You can also download the UDA slides for reference to its 8 steps presentation. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
