Re: Note to Russell Standish
On 14 Oct 2013, at 10:55, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, That explanation is very helpful. Can I conclude that human beings and perhaps all other kinds of beings, are then arithmetic machines that can participate in the hallucinations? They can share a part of your hallucinations, yes. Reality is dream sharing. Logically, some other entities might be conscious yet not being machines. They do exist abstractly, and are usually Löbian too. (Unfortunately all examples that I know are a bit technical to describe: Solovay mentions "true in all transitive models of ZF". It cannot be Turing emulable, yet obeys to G and G*, but those logics are no more complete, they are only sound). With comp, they might still play some role in the afterlife---I am not sure. Bruno Richard On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Even in my Metaverse String cosmology I can understand how from the beginning of the Metaverse how its machine can generate all Lobian numbers including arithmetic humans and aliens long before our universe exists and evolves conscious physical beings. What I do not understand is why those physical beings are needed. They are not needed in the assumptions or axioms. They are "needed" because the löbian numbers cannot avoid them, and this should be understood through the whole UDA. Then the math confirms this in some way. You say they are needed as much a a particular number is needed. But that I do not understand. Particular numbers I presume are included in all the Lobian numbers. so why are physical beings needed? I assume the natural numbers, and elementary arithmetic. I do have the axioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x In that theory I can prove the existence of the Löbian numbers, which basically will be the numbers coding the belief in classical logic + the axioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x (F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x) for each F, arithmetical formula. And those are the numbers that I will interview about their "persistent physical hallucinations". I call those number Löbian because they are characterized by Löb's formula: []([]p -> p) -> []p, with "[]" denoting their arithmetical provability predicate. It seems to me, especially in view of MWI, Keep in mind that UDA forces us to abandon all physical assumptions, so we can't assume QM, nor time, space, energy, etc. Those are emergent pattern in the mind of the average Löbian numbers. that the machine generates everything to begin with including the passage of time. But you seem to claim that physical beings are needed to generate all Lobian numbers. There are no physical beings at all in the ontology (which contains only 0, s(0), ...). Physical beings are mental pattern in the mind of those numbers. It *is* a form of idealism, but it is objective idealism, as the physical reality will be a common and sharable pattern in the objective mind of all Löbian numbers. That I do not understand at all. The TOE is elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). The "observable" are recovered from sharable persistent hallucinations. It is an inside view by the machines/numbers. Bruno Richard On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). Richard: If the Lobian number exists, why are humans or aliens needed at all? They are needed like the number 1879600442671119229 is needed. Once all löbian numbers exist, humans and aliens exists because they are Löbian numbers, among many. Bruno: I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. Richard: Are you saying that I existed before the universe? In what realm did I exist? In the realm of elementary arithmetic. It contains infinitely many computations going through you actual states. Apparently we share many of those computations. We have to explain why. We can succeed only in deriving the physical laws from that complex computations statistics. That's the result: a problem for the computationalist. I illustrate how to solve the problem in a way which takes into account what machines (us) can really justify about us, and what is true about us, but that we cannot justify. This takes unavoidable intensional nuances which are helpful to avoid the elimination of consciousness and persons, and to provide an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus and Plato. Bruno On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:4
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Bruno, That explanation is very helpful. Can I conclude that human beings and perhaps all other kinds of beings, are then arithmetic machines that can participate in the hallucinations? Richard On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno, > > Even in my Metaverse String cosmology I can understand how from the > beginning of the Metaverse how its machine can generate all Lobian numbers > including arithmetic humans and aliens long before our universe exists and > evolves conscious physical beings. What I do not understand is why those > physical beings are needed. > > > They are not needed in the assumptions or axioms. They are "needed" > because the löbian numbers cannot avoid them, and this should be understood > through the whole UDA. Then the math confirms this in some way. > > > > > You say they are needed as much a a particular number is needed. But that > I do not understand. Particular numbers I presume are included in all the > Lobian numbers. so why are physical beings needed? > > > I assume the natural numbers, and elementary arithmetic. I do have the > axioms: > > 0 ≠ s(x) > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > In that theory I can prove the existence of the Löbian numbers, which > basically will be the numbers coding the belief in classical logic + the > axioms: > > 0 ≠ s(x) > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > (F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x) for each F, arithmetical formula. > > And those are the numbers that I will interview about their "persistent > physical hallucinations". > > I call those number Löbian because they are characterized by Löb's > formula: []([]p -> p) -> []p, with "[]" denoting their arithmetical > provability predicate. > > > > > > It seems to me, especially in view of MWI, > > > Keep in mind that UDA forces us to abandon all physical assumptions, so we > can't assume QM, nor time, space, energy, etc. Those are emergent pattern > in the mind of the average Löbian numbers. > > > > that the machine generates everything to begin with including the passage > of time. But you seem to claim that physical beings are needed to generate > all Lobian numbers. > > > There are no physical beings at all in the ontology (which contains only > 0, s(0), ...). Physical beings are mental pattern in the mind of those > numbers. It *is* a form of idealism, but it is objective idealism, as the > physical reality will be a common and sharable pattern in the objective > mind of all Löbian numbers. > > > > That I do not understand at all. > > > The TOE is elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). The "observable" > are recovered from sharable persistent hallucinations. It is an inside view > by the machines/numbers. > > Bruno > > > > > Richard > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Bruno: ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently >> rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). >> >> Richard: If the Lobian number exists, why are humans or aliens needed at >> all? >> >> >> They are needed like the number 1879600442671119229 is needed. >> >> Once all löbian numbers exist, humans and aliens exists because they are >> Löbian numbers, among many. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruno: I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a >> program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the >> possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the >> universe. >> >> Richard: Are you saying that I existed before the universe? In what realm >> did I exist? >> >> >> In the realm of elementary arithmetic. >> >> It contains infinitely many computations going through you actual states. >> >> Apparently we share many of those computations. We have to explain why. >> We can succeed only in deriving the physical laws from that complex >> computations statistics. >> >> That's the result: a problem for the computationalist. >> >> I illustrate how to solve the problem in a way which takes into account >> what machines (us) can really justify about us, and what is true about us, >> but that we cannot justify. >> This takes unavoidable intensional nuances which are helpful to avoid the >> elimination of consciousness and persons, and to provide an arithmetical >> interpretation of Plotinus and Plato. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative >>> universal numbers >>> >>> Richard: Who other than humans can do that? >>> >>> >>> ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich >>> theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). >>> >>> We might argue that only humans can
Re: Note to Russell Standish
On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Even in my Metaverse String cosmology I can understand how from the beginning of the Metaverse how its machine can generate all Lobian numbers including arithmetic humans and aliens long before our universe exists and evolves conscious physical beings. What I do not understand is why those physical beings are needed. They are not needed in the assumptions or axioms. They are "needed" because the löbian numbers cannot avoid them, and this should be understood through the whole UDA. Then the math confirms this in some way. You say they are needed as much a a particular number is needed. But that I do not understand. Particular numbers I presume are included in all the Lobian numbers. so why are physical beings needed? I assume the natural numbers, and elementary arithmetic. I do have the axioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x In that theory I can prove the existence of the Löbian numbers, which basically will be the numbers coding the belief in classical logic + the axioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x (F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x) for each F, arithmetical formula. And those are the numbers that I will interview about their "persistent physical hallucinations". I call those number Löbian because they are characterized by Löb's formula: []([]p -> p) -> []p, with "[]" denoting their arithmetical provability predicate. It seems to me, especially in view of MWI, Keep in mind that UDA forces us to abandon all physical assumptions, so we can't assume QM, nor time, space, energy, etc. Those are emergent pattern in the mind of the average Löbian numbers. that the machine generates everything to begin with including the passage of time. But you seem to claim that physical beings are needed to generate all Lobian numbers. There are no physical beings at all in the ontology (which contains only 0, s(0), ...). Physical beings are mental pattern in the mind of those numbers. It *is* a form of idealism, but it is objective idealism, as the physical reality will be a common and sharable pattern in the objective mind of all Löbian numbers. That I do not understand at all. The TOE is elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). The "observable" are recovered from sharable persistent hallucinations. It is an inside view by the machines/numbers. Bruno Richard On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). Richard: If the Lobian number exists, why are humans or aliens needed at all? They are needed like the number 1879600442671119229 is needed. Once all löbian numbers exist, humans and aliens exists because they are Löbian numbers, among many. Bruno: I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. Richard: Are you saying that I existed before the universe? In what realm did I exist? In the realm of elementary arithmetic. It contains infinitely many computations going through you actual states. Apparently we share many of those computations. We have to explain why. We can succeed only in deriving the physical laws from that complex computations statistics. That's the result: a problem for the computationalist. I illustrate how to solve the problem in a way which takes into account what machines (us) can really justify about us, and what is true about us, but that we cannot justify. This takes unavoidable intensional nuances which are helpful to avoid the elimination of consciousness and persons, and to provide an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus and Plato. Bruno On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers Richard: Who other than humans can do that? ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). We might argue that only humans can build huge telescopes and see the far away galaxies, but this would not imply that those galaxies needs humans to exist. Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that humans change the past? No, because the physical past is an indexical which eventually subsume the whole UD*, and thus some part of arithmetic. Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism. I was just referring to the fact that the UD will ge
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Bruno, Even in my Metaverse String cosmology I can understand how from the beginning of the Metaverse how its machine can generate all Lobian numbers including arithmetic humans and aliens long before our universe exists and evolves conscious physical beings. What I do not understand is why those physical beings are needed. You say they are needed as much a a particular number is needed. But that I do not understand. Particular numbers I presume are included in all the Lobian numbers. so why are physical beings needed? It seems to me, especially in view of MWI, that the machine generates everything to begin with including the passage of time. But you seem to claim that physical beings are needed to generate all Lobian numbers. That I do not understand at all. Richard On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno: ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich > theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). > > Richard: If the Lobian number exists, why are humans or aliens needed at > all? > > > They are needed like the number 1879600442671119229 is needed. > > Once all löbian numbers exist, humans and aliens exists because they are > Löbian numbers, among many. > > > > > > Bruno: I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a > program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the > possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the > universe. > > Richard: Are you saying that I existed before the universe? In what realm > did I exist? > > > In the realm of elementary arithmetic. > > It contains infinitely many computations going through you actual states. > > Apparently we share many of those computations. We have to explain why. > We can succeed only in deriving the physical laws from that complex > computations statistics. > > That's the result: a problem for the computationalist. > > I illustrate how to solve the problem in a way which takes into account > what machines (us) can really justify about us, and what is true about us, > but that we cannot justify. > This takes unavoidable intensional nuances which are helpful to avoid the > elimination of consciousness and persons, and to provide an arithmetical > interpretation of Plotinus and Plato. > > Bruno > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative >> universal numbers >> >> Richard: Who other than humans can do that? >> >> >> ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich >> theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). >> >> We might argue that only humans can build huge telescopes and see the far >> away galaxies, but this would not imply that those galaxies needs humans to >> exist. >> >> >> >> >> Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that >> humans change the past? >> >> >> No, because the physical past is an indexical which eventually subsume >> the whole UD*, and thus some part of arithmetic. >> >> >> >> >> Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism. >> >> >> I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program >> emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible >> quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. >> >> Evolution, is, most plausibly a statistically exact account of our local >> history. >> >> >> >> So far you have not dismissed my inference that comp needs humans to work. >> >> >> Some alien can also bet that they have a brain, and that it is Turing >> emulable. In arithmetic there are infinities of numbers which, relatively >> to some universal number arrives at that same conclusion (and in this case >> we know that they are correct). >> Do you think we need humans for having the truth that 1+1=2? If you agree >> we don't, then we don't humans to have the larger set of löbian numbers and >> their dreams, from which physical realities emerges. >> >> >> >> IMO if true, that in itself dismisses comp as contrary to established >> science. >> >> >> We need humans only to explain comp to humans, but comp is basically the >> idea that machine/numbers can manifest consciousness in their relevant >> relative environment/computations. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > --
Re: Note to Russell Standish
On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). Richard: If the Lobian number exists, why are humans or aliens needed at all? They are needed like the number 1879600442671119229 is needed. Once all löbian numbers exist, humans and aliens exists because they are Löbian numbers, among many. Bruno: I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. Richard: Are you saying that I existed before the universe? In what realm did I exist? In the realm of elementary arithmetic. It contains infinitely many computations going through you actual states. Apparently we share many of those computations. We have to explain why. We can succeed only in deriving the physical laws from that complex computations statistics. That's the result: a problem for the computationalist. I illustrate how to solve the problem in a way which takes into account what machines (us) can really justify about us, and what is true about us, but that we cannot justify. This takes unavoidable intensional nuances which are helpful to avoid the elimination of consciousness and persons, and to provide an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus and Plato. Bruno On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers Richard: Who other than humans can do that? ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). We might argue that only humans can build huge telescopes and see the far away galaxies, but this would not imply that those galaxies needs humans to exist. Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that humans change the past? No, because the physical past is an indexical which eventually subsume the whole UD*, and thus some part of arithmetic. Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism. I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. Evolution, is, most plausibly a statistically exact account of our local history. So far you have not dismissed my inference that comp needs humans to work. Some alien can also bet that they have a brain, and that it is Turing emulable. In arithmetic there are infinities of numbers which, relatively to some universal number arrives at that same conclusion (and in this case we know that they are correct). Do you think we need humans for having the truth that 1+1=2? If you agree we don't, then we don't humans to have the larger set of löbian numbers and their dreams, from which physical realities emerges. IMO if true, that in itself dismisses comp as contrary to established science. We need humans only to explain comp to humans, but comp is basically the idea that machine/numbers can manifest consciousness in their relevant relative environment/computations. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Bruno: ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). Richard: If the Lobian number exists, why are humans or aliens needed at all? Bruno: I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. Richard: Are you saying that I existed before the universe? In what realm did I exist? On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative > universal numbers > > Richard: Who other than humans can do that? > > > ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich > theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). > > We might argue that only humans can build huge telescopes and see the far > away galaxies, but this would not imply that those galaxies needs humans to > exist. > > > > > Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that > humans change the past? > > > No, because the physical past is an indexical which eventually subsume the > whole UD*, and thus some part of arithmetic. > > > > > Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism. > > > I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program > emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible > quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. > > Evolution, is, most plausibly a statistically exact account of our local > history. > > > > So far you have not dismissed my inference that comp needs humans to work. > > > Some alien can also bet that they have a brain, and that it is Turing > emulable. In arithmetic there are infinities of numbers which, relatively > to some universal number arrives at that same conclusion (and in this case > we know that they are correct). > Do you think we need humans for having the truth that 1+1=2? If you agree > we don't, then we don't humans to have the larger set of löbian numbers and > their dreams, from which physical realities emerges. > > > > IMO if true, that in itself dismisses comp as contrary to established > science. > > > We need humans only to explain comp to humans, but comp is basically the > idea that machine/numbers can manifest consciousness in their relevant > relative environment/computations. > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Note to Russell Standish
On 12 Oct 2013, at 21:28, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I can't help it: I liked Richard's interjection. Arithmetics (even in your fundamental vision - I suppose) needs 'human logic' to propagate etc., Yes. Like galaxies needs human teacher in astronomy to propagate in human children knowledge or beliefs. no matter how the elements may be thought to pre-date humans. Does a stone, or the 'root' of a plant, a microbe, or a cloud follow (evolve? apply?) your math- equations? I mean: not in their 'existence', but AS MATH (observing numbers, i.e. arithmetix)? Does a stone obey to the gravitation law before the humans appears? Did you mean that (by UD) did humans got generated into logically thinking creatures? Where in Nature would you detect (whole-sale) arithmetics? Nature is an emerging pattern from arithmetic seen from inside by (relative) numbers, in case comp is correct. (Meaning: beyond the 1, a pair, ~many etc. generalities? Prime numbers??) That would make us UNIQUE - not just a level in Nature. (Children of God - the Creator?) No, because we are ourselves emergent pattern of the additive- multiplicative number structure. Bruno JM On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 15:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work. ? We need only Löbian-Turing intelligence which exists as a consequence of elementary arithmetic. The theory is: identity logic + ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) Where do you see an assumption about humans? Well, a best know but equivalent (with respecto the Everything goal) theory is: classical logic + 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Again, where do you see an assumption about human. Human are used in UDA, of course, to explain comp to humans, but the result is that the theories above, although quite incomplete with respect to the arithmetical truth, are complete for the ontology needed to explain physics and consciousness. We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers (in the sense of Post, Turing, Church, etc.) provides an excellent candidate, especially with comp, of course. So how did evolution happen before humans existed? The UD generates the human before evolution, but their statistical weight is probably not relevant. Eventually the UD has to emulate some very long histories and the humans get a deeper and deeper past. Bruno On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972 > wrote: Dear Russell, Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on Bruno's "mathematical reductionism": 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) process. 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and consequently inter-subjectivity. My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your mind about any of these presuppositions? Yours forever in the multiverse, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, v
Re: Note to Russell Standish
On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers Richard: Who other than humans can do that? ? The answer is the Löbian number (the so called sufficiently rich theories, which exists in arithmetic, in a variety of relative way). We might argue that only humans can build huge telescopes and see the far away galaxies, but this would not imply that those galaxies needs humans to exist. Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that humans change the past? No, because the physical past is an indexical which eventually subsume the whole UD*, and thus some part of arithmetic. Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism. I was just referring to the fact that the UD will generates a program emulating you, before generating the complete emulation of the possible quantum vacuum fluctuation leading to the actual story of the universe. Evolution, is, most plausibly a statistically exact account of our local history. So far you have not dismissed my inference that comp needs humans to work. Some alien can also bet that they have a brain, and that it is Turing emulable. In arithmetic there are infinities of numbers which, relatively to some universal number arrives at that same conclusion (and in this case we know that they are correct). Do you think we need humans for having the truth that 1+1=2? If you agree we don't, then we don't humans to have the larger set of löbian numbers and their dreams, from which physical realities emerges. IMO if true, that in itself dismisses comp as contrary to established science. We need humans only to explain comp to humans, but comp is basically the idea that machine/numbers can manifest consciousness in their relevant relative environment/computations. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Note to Russell Standish
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:39:32AM -0700, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > Dear Russell, > > Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on > Bruno's > "mathematical reductionism": > > 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness > > 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and > complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but > not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like > Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." > > 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is > one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler > initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, > that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) > process. > > 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, > you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and > consequently inter-subjectivity. > > > My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your > mind about any of these presuppositions? > > Yours forever in the multiverse, > Dan > In answer to your question, no I haven't changed my mind about any of those. 1) is not a presupposition though, but a conclusion. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Bruno, I can't help it: I liked Richard's interjection. Arithmetics (even in your fundamental vision - I suppose) needs 'human logic' to propagate etc., no matter how the elements may be thought to pre-date humans. Does a stone, or the 'root' of a plant, a microbe, or a cloud follow (evolve? apply?) your math- equations? I mean: not in their 'existence', but AS MATH (observing numbers, i.e. arithmetix)? Did you mean that (by UD) did humans got generated into logically thinking creatures? Where in Nature would you detect (whole-sale) arithmetics? (Meaning: beyond the 1, a pair, ~many etc. generalities? Prime numbers??) That would make us UNIQUE - not just a level in Nature. (Children of God - the Creator?) JM On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 15:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work. > > > ? > > We need only Löbian-Turing intelligence which exists as a consequence of > elementary arithmetic. > > The theory is: > > identity logic + > ((K, x), y) = x > (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) > > Where do you see an assumption about humans? > > Well, a best know but equivalent (with respecto the Everything goal) > theory is: > > classical logic + > 0 ≠ s(x) > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > Again, where do you see an assumption about human. > > Human are used in UDA, of course, to explain comp to humans, but the > result is that the theories above, although quite incomplete with respect > to the arithmetical truth, are complete for the ontology needed to explain > physics and consciousness. > We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal > numbers (in the sense of Post, Turing, Church, etc.) provides an excellent > candidate, especially with comp, of course. > > > > > So how did evolution happen before humans existed? > > > The UD generates the human before evolution, but their statistical weight > is probably not relevant. Eventually the UD has to emulate some very long > histories and the humans get a deeper and deeper past. > > Bruno > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972 < > thismindisbud...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Russell, >> >> Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack >> on Bruno's >> "mathematical reductionism": >> >> 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness >> >> 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and >> complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but >> not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like >> Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." >> >> 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is >> one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler >> initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, >> that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) >> process. >> >> 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, >> you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and >> consequently inter-subjectivity. >> >> >> My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed >> your >> mind about any of these presuppositions? >> >> Yours forever in the multiverse, >> Dan >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Bruno: We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers Richard: Who other than humans can do that? Bruno: The UD generates the human before evolution. Do you claim that humans change the past? Richard: So humans do not evolve. Sounds like creationism. So far you have not dismissed my inference that comp needs humans to work. IMO if true, that in itself dismisses comp as contrary to established science. On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 15:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work. > > > ? > > We need only Löbian-Turing intelligence which exists as a consequence of > elementary arithmetic. > > The theory is: > > identity logic + > ((K, x), y) = x > (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) > > Where do you see an assumption about humans? > > Well, a best know but equivalent (with respecto the Everything goal) > theory is: > > classical logic + > 0 ≠ s(x) > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > Again, where do you see an assumption about human. > > Human are used in UDA, of course, to explain comp to humans, but the > result is that the theories above, although quite incomplete with respect > to the arithmetical truth, are complete for the ontology needed to explain > physics and consciousness. > We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal > numbers (in the sense of Post, Turing, Church, etc.) provides an excellent > candidate, especially with comp, of course. > > > > > So how did evolution happen before humans existed? > > > The UD generates the human before evolution, but their statistical weight > is probably not relevant. Eventually the UD has to emulate some very long > histories and the humans get a deeper and deeper past. > > Bruno > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972 < > thismindisbud...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Russell, >> >> Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack >> on Bruno's >> "mathematical reductionism": >> >> 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness >> >> 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and >> complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but >> not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like >> Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." >> >> 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is >> one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler >> initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, >> that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) >> process. >> >> 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, >> you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and >> consequently inter-subjectivity. >> >> >> My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed >> your >> mind about any of these presuppositions? >> >> Yours forever in the multiverse, >> Dan >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Note to Russell Standish
On 12 Oct 2013, at 15:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work. ? We need only Löbian-Turing intelligence which exists as a consequence of elementary arithmetic. The theory is: identity logic + ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) Where do you see an assumption about humans? Well, a best know but equivalent (with respecto the Everything goal) theory is: classical logic + 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Again, where do you see an assumption about human. Human are used in UDA, of course, to explain comp to humans, but the result is that the theories above, although quite incomplete with respect to the arithmetical truth, are complete for the ontology needed to explain physics and consciousness. We need only a good dreamer, and the discovery of the relative universal numbers (in the sense of Post, Turing, Church, etc.) provides an excellent candidate, especially with comp, of course. So how did evolution happen before humans existed? The UD generates the human before evolution, but their statistical weight is probably not relevant. Eventually the UD has to emulate some very long histories and the humans get a deeper and deeper past. Bruno On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972 > wrote: Dear Russell, Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on Bruno's "mathematical reductionism": 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) process. 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and consequently inter-subjectivity. My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your mind about any of these presuppositions? Yours forever in the multiverse, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Note to Russell Standish
Human intelligence seems to be required for comp to work. So how did evolution happen before humans existed? On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:39 AM, freqflyer07281972 < thismindisbud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Russell, > > Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on > Bruno's > "mathematical reductionism": > > 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness > > 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and > complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but > not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like > Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." > > 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is > one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler > initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, > that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) > process. > > 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, > you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and > consequently inter-subjectivity. > > > My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your > mind about any of these presuppositions? > > Yours forever in the multiverse, > Dan > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Note to Russell Standish
Dear Russell, Back in 2012, you made the following claims regarding my general attack on Bruno's "mathematical reductionism": 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler." 3) The simplest environment generating a given level of complexity is one that has arisen as a result of evolution from a much simpler initial state. This is the evolution in the multiverse observation, that evolution is the only creative (or information generating) process. 4) Evolutionary processes work with populations, so automatically, you must have other self-aware entities in your world, and consequently inter-subjectivity. My question to you, as basic as it might seem, is... have you changed your mind about any of these presuppositions? Yours forever in the multiverse, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
