Re: Bruno against Plato
On 10 Dec 2013, at 23:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Thanks for the clarification. You are welcome. But for what refer to the questions i asked, I find that my initial assumptions are broadly correct. I find the platonism of the UDA very different from the Platonism of Plato. It is more pythagorean, and it contains Plotinus correction of Aristotle theory of matter (as mainly an indeterminate). Yes, Platonism evolved a lot from Plato to Damascius, and made a big jump, through Church-Turing and Gödel. despite the merits that the hypothesis of mechanism may have to clarify other questions. The goal is to show that with computationalism, the mind-body problem is a problem in mathematical logic. Then we can see that the solution will satisfy more Plato than Naturalism. Physics become a branch of machine's theology or psychology ... Bruno 2013/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 12:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. Where that structure come from? They follow from the laws of addition and multiplication and logic, basically from: 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 The TOE has no other axioms. (Only definitions). Note that most scientific theories admit those axioms. I see all computatons possible coming from the UDA, You mean the UD (the universal dovetailer). UDA is for the UD Argument (UDA is only the name of a deductive argument based on the notion of Universal Dovetailing). some of them with structure, some of them do not. That is ambiguous. They all have some structure. But I am OK, as some have internal and external (to them, relatively) random data, also. It is isomorphic to some subset of the mathematical multiverse Too much fuzzy. It depends of your starting assumption. multiverse is usually used in the context of QM. But neither QM, nor ~QM is assumed in the UD Argument. The UD argument is deductive (not entirely in step 8 as it is intended to apply on 'reality' and use Occam razor). It shows that if you survive with a digital brain, then you survive in the infinitely many arithmetical brain, and physics, to remain a stable appearance has no choice to exploit an infinite self-multiplication. UDA reduces partially the mind-body problem (my job) to a body problem in arithmetic. It is a problem. Not a solution of a problem (except that in the arithmetical translation of the UDA (AUDA), we can already interview the universal machine (Löbian one) on that problem, and they tell us that Plato seems less foolish than Aristotle. or the boltzmann aleatory structures. Same remark. Keep in mind that if we accept the existence of a physical reality, we meta-reason to find the deepest laws of reality, and be open that physics might not be the fundamental theory. Or can be emulated by UDA. Yes. Note that the UD emulation is entirely deterministic (in the 3p), and hopefully partially deterministic in the 1p (plural) view. The only additional merit is the use of few initial assumptions. I think you miss the point. I am just saying that if comp is correct, then adding anything to those initial assumption is a redundant form of conceptual treachery. But to emulate everithing possible with few assumptions is not a merit IMHO. You do miss the point. With all my respect. The emulation is only a manner of formulating the problem precisely, that is, mathematically. I´m not trying to be harsh. No problem. I could look like a philosopher, defending some theory. But that's not what I do, and did. I am a logician, and computer scientist, explaining that if you say yes to the comp doctor, then (assuming you have
Re: Bruno against Plato
Not a bad achievement. Instead, the hypothesis that the living beings compute in order to solve evolutionary pressures is closer to the Plato world of ideas, Or specifically, the Plato-Aristotle syntesis of Thomas Aquinas. and also closer to dig knowledge for living, that it , at last, the purpose of the philosophers of the antiquity. It can explain how the world of ideas is the result of the hardcoding, by natural selection. of key concepts and their relations in order to survive in society and nature. That go as deep as to define reality, the perception of space and time, that is, the entire soul, psyche or mind whatever you may call it. Lorentz explained how the Kantian a prioris, that embrace the platonic ideas or Aristotle categories, but also the mechanisms of the perceptions are shaped by natural selection. So matter becomes a phenomenon in the mind. and the kantian thing-in-itself becomes something whose only attribute is that produces coherent perceptions among many observers. It can be purely mathematical and nothing more, then. The cause-effect may be reversed, to say that the mind determines the coherence (That is, the mathematicity) of the external reality and also its evolutionary history in order to be coherent with its own coherence in time, since what is observed is correlation, not causality in one or other direction. It explains also how the aestetic appreciation of flowers and patterns of colors, and the horror to the serpents, the need to carry empty bags and boots (even in summertime) in women is linked to the ancestral need to locate patterns of edible vegetables in the wild, avoid serpents and carry the gathered vegetables home. 2013/12/11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 23:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Thanks for the clarification. You are welcome. But for what refer to the questions i asked, I find that my initial assumptions are broadly correct. I find the platonism of the UDA very different from the Platonism of Plato. It is more pythagorean, and it contains Plotinus correction of Aristotle theory of matter (as mainly an indeterminate). Yes, Platonism evolved a lot from Plato to Damascius, and made a big jump, through Church-Turing and Gödel. despite the merits that the hypothesis of mechanism may have to clarify other questions. The goal is to show that with computationalism, the mind-body problem is a problem in mathematical logic. Then we can see that the solution will satisfy more Plato than Naturalism. Physics become a branch of machine's theology or psychology ... Bruno 2013/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 12:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. Where that structure come from? They follow from the laws of addition and multiplication and logic, basically from: 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 The TOE has no other axioms. (Only definitions). Note that most scientific theories admit those axioms. I see all computatons possible coming from the UDA, You mean the UD (the universal dovetailer). UDA is for the UD Argument (UDA is only the name of a deductive argument based on the notion of Universal Dovetailing). some of them with structure, some of them do not. That is ambiguous. They all have some structure. But I am OK, as some have internal and external (to them, relatively) random data, also. It is isomorphic to some subset of the mathematical multiverse Too much fuzzy. It depends of your starting assumption. multiverse is usually used in the context of QM. But neither QM, nor ~QM is assumed in the UD Argument. The UD argument is
Re: Bruno against Plato
http://nocorrecto.blogspot.com.es/2011/11/why-women-like-bags-and-shoes-but-only.html 2013/12/11, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Not a bad achievement. Instead, the hypothesis that the living beings compute in order to solve evolutionary pressures is closer to the Plato world of ideas, Or specifically, the Plato-Aristotle syntesis of Thomas Aquinas. and also closer to dig knowledge for living, that it , at last, the purpose of the philosophers of the antiquity. It can explain how the world of ideas is the result of the hardcoding, by natural selection. of key concepts and their relations in order to survive in society and nature. That go as deep as to define reality, the perception of space and time, that is, the entire soul, psyche or mind whatever you may call it. Lorentz explained how the Kantian a prioris, that embrace the platonic ideas or Aristotle categories, but also the mechanisms of the perceptions are shaped by natural selection. So matter becomes a phenomenon in the mind. and the kantian thing-in-itself becomes something whose only attribute is that produces coherent perceptions among many observers. It can be purely mathematical and nothing more, then. The cause-effect may be reversed, to say that the mind determines the coherence (That is, the mathematicity) of the external reality and also its evolutionary history in order to be coherent with its own coherence in time, since what is observed is correlation, not causality in one or other direction. It explains also how the aestetic appreciation of flowers and patterns of colors, and the horror to the serpents, the need to carry empty bags and boots (even in summertime) in women is linked to the ancestral need to locate patterns of edible vegetables in the wild, avoid serpents and carry the gathered vegetables home. 2013/12/11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 23:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Thanks for the clarification. You are welcome. But for what refer to the questions i asked, I find that my initial assumptions are broadly correct. I find the platonism of the UDA very different from the Platonism of Plato. It is more pythagorean, and it contains Plotinus correction of Aristotle theory of matter (as mainly an indeterminate). Yes, Platonism evolved a lot from Plato to Damascius, and made a big jump, through Church-Turing and Gödel. despite the merits that the hypothesis of mechanism may have to clarify other questions. The goal is to show that with computationalism, the mind-body problem is a problem in mathematical logic. Then we can see that the solution will satisfy more Plato than Naturalism. Physics become a branch of machine's theology or psychology ... Bruno 2013/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 12:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. Where that structure come from? They follow from the laws of addition and multiplication and logic, basically from: 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 The TOE has no other axioms. (Only definitions). Note that most scientific theories admit those axioms. I see all computatons possible coming from the UDA, You mean the UD (the universal dovetailer). UDA is for the UD Argument (UDA is only the name of a deductive argument based on the notion of Universal Dovetailing). some of them with structure, some of them do not. That is ambiguous. They all have some structure. But I am OK, as some have internal and external (to them, relatively) random data, also. It is isomorphic to some subset of the mathematical multiverse Too much fuzzy. It
Re: Bruno against Plato
Alberto, I agree with what you say below. In fact evolution needs arguably to presuppose computationalism. Computationalism explains that we have to extend the idea of evolution to the origin and development of the physical objects and laws, which will be used later by evolution. The laws of physics evolve through both a certain type of possible deep computations (cosmological history), and the FPI on all computations (comp-quantum computations). With comp, causality, responsibility, reason, are mind's higher cognitive notion to structure the information we get. It does not exist in the basic reality, which can be taken as only the numbers + the numbers law. Computationalism forces us to extend both Darwin, and the move begun by Galilee-Einstein-Everett-Rossler (and others). It gives something opposed strongly to anthropomorphism, but close to universal person-morphism. You still seem to assume (primitive) matter, but perhaps it is just because you are interested in the human history, and not really in the question why there is something instead of nothing. Bruno On 11 Dec 2013, at 11:46, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not a bad achievement. Instead, the hypothesis that the living beings compute in order to solve evolutionary pressures is closer to the Plato world of ideas, Or specifically, the Plato-Aristotle syntesis of Thomas Aquinas. and also closer to dig knowledge for living, that it , at last, the purpose of the philosophers of the antiquity. It can explain how the world of ideas is the result of the hardcoding, by natural selection. of key concepts and their relations in order to survive in society and nature. That go as deep as to define reality, the perception of space and time, that is, the entire soul, psyche or mind whatever you may call it. Lorentz explained how the Kantian a prioris, that embrace the platonic ideas or Aristotle categories, but also the mechanisms of the perceptions are shaped by natural selection. So matter becomes a phenomenon in the mind. and the kantian thing-in-itself becomes something whose only attribute is that produces coherent perceptions among many observers. It can be purely mathematical and nothing more, then. The cause-effect may be reversed, to say that the mind determines the coherence (That is, the mathematicity) of the external reality and also its evolutionary history in order to be coherent with its own coherence in time, since what is observed is correlation, not causality in one or other direction. It explains also how the aestetic appreciation of flowers and patterns of colors, and the horror to the serpents, the need to carry empty bags and boots (even in summertime) in women is linked to the ancestral need to locate patterns of edible vegetables in the wild, avoid serpents and carry the gathered vegetables home. 2013/12/11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 23:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Thanks for the clarification. You are welcome. But for what refer to the questions i asked, I find that my initial assumptions are broadly correct. I find the platonism of the UDA very different from the Platonism of Plato. It is more pythagorean, and it contains Plotinus correction of Aristotle theory of matter (as mainly an indeterminate). Yes, Platonism evolved a lot from Plato to Damascius, and made a big jump, through Church-Turing and Gödel. despite the merits that the hypothesis of mechanism may have to clarify other questions. The goal is to show that with computationalism, the mind-body problem is a problem in mathematical logic. Then we can see that the solution will satisfy more Plato than Naturalism. Physics become a branch of machine's theology or psychology ... Bruno 2013/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 12:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure,
Re: Bruno against Plato
On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. So at the end while Plato pressuposes order the UDA pressuposes that there are tree elements that produce everithing that exist, and those that does not exist. I assume comp, and then reason. Like Plato we presuppose order (indeed, brought by arithmetic: we know that the order in arithmetic is *very* rich, and not completely accessible by *any* effective theory). Comp let us just assume no more order than there is in arithmetic, at he basic ontological (assumed) level.. Al the end there are two theories of everithing: In the beginning there was order and mind That is exactly what you get by assuming comp. In the 'beginning' you have order (the additive/multiplicative structure of the numbers) and the emerging mind from it (the universal consciousness that you associate to all universal numbers in arithmetic, by comp, and which is differentiating through the indexical (self-referential) FPI). or at the beginning there was some kind of primitive matter and chaos. Plato theory is in the first case. Yes. No primitive matter, and the full rich order of the numbers (or of any Turing universal system). Yours appears to be in the second. Not at all. There is no assumed matter, and we assume the order needed to make sense of computations and Church thesis. You are right that there is some chaos, but that is part of the (new) world of ideas. What is your route from chaos to Plato? The One of the Parmenides (used by Plotinus) = arithmetical truth (that is full order far beyond what any machine can grasped). Chaos can be there, like in the prime numbers, but there is also a lot of music. That chaos is there is what is new in Platonia, but Plato could not be aware of Gödel. The Noùs (Plato's universe of ideas) is given by the arithmetical truth, made partially intelligible by the universal numbers. The Soul (Plato's soul, Plotinus' universal soul) is given by the conjunction/intersection of the One, and the Noùs. Intelligible Matter is given by the conjunction of the Noùs and the existence of a reality (self-consistency, Dt). Sensible Matter is given by the conjunction of intelligible matter and the One. More on this in the Plotinus' paper. Comp rehabilitates not just Plato, but Pythagorus (thanks to Church thesis). 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: Bruno against Plato
2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. Where that structure come from? I see all computatons possible coming from the UDA, some of them with structure, some of them do not. It is isomorphic to some subset of the mathematical multiverse or the boltzmann aleatory structures.Or can be emulated by UDA. The only additional merit is the use of few initial assumptions. But to emulate everithing possible with few assumptions is not a merit IMHO. I´m not trying to be harsh. I just want to put my impressions in words. The platoninc world of ideas is then ONE of the many possible infinite whoknows that the UDA can produce. The self reference, the diofantic equations etc are tentative ways to stablish a limit to that exuberance, but either you postulate UDA in its completeness and everithing produced from UDA exist and therefore I´m right and the order is only apparent and local, like in the multiverse hypothesis(that i find equaly unsatisfactory) or you add additional axioms. So at the end while Plato pressuposes order the UDA pressuposes that there are tree elements that produce everithing that exist, and those that does not exist. I assume comp, and then reason. Like Plato we presuppose order (indeed, brought by arithmetic: we know that the order in arithmetic is *very* rich, and not completely accessible by *any* effective theory). Comp let us just assume no more order than there is in arithmetic, at he basic ontological (assumed) level.. Al the end there are two theories of everithing: In the beginning there was order and mind That is exactly what you get by assuming comp. In the 'beginning' you have order (the additive/multiplicative structure of the numbers) and the emerging mind from it (the universal consciousness that you associate to all universal numbers in arithmetic, by comp, and which is differentiating through the indexical (self-referential) FPI). or at the beginning there was some kind of primitive matter and chaos. Plato theory is in the first case. Yes. No primitive matter, and the full rich order of the numbers (or of any Turing universal system). Yours appears to be in the second. Not at all. There is no assumed matter, and we assume the order needed to make sense of computations and Church thesis. You are right that there is some chaos, but that is part of the (new) world of ideas. What is your route from chaos to Plato? The One of the Parmenides (used by Plotinus) = arithmetical truth (that is full order far beyond what any machine can grasped). Chaos can be there, like in the prime numbers, but there is also a lot of music. That chaos is there is what is new in Platonia, but Plato could not be aware of Gödel. The Noùs (Plato's universe of ideas) is given by the arithmetical truth, made partially intelligible by the universal numbers. The Soul (Plato's soul, Plotinus' universal soul) is given by the conjunction/intersection of the One, and the Noùs. Intelligible Matter is given by the conjunction of the Noùs and the existence of a reality (self-consistency, Dt). Sensible Matter is given by the conjunction of intelligible matter and the One. More on this in the Plotinus' paper. Comp rehabilitates not just Plato, but Pythagorus (thanks to Church thesis). 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
Re: Bruno against Plato
On 10 Dec 2013, at 12:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. Where that structure come from? They follow from the laws of addition and multiplication and logic, basically from: 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 The TOE has no other axioms. (Only definitions). Note that most scientific theories admit those axioms. I see all computatons possible coming from the UDA, You mean the UD (the universal dovetailer). UDA is for the UD Argument (UDA is only the name of a deductive argument based on the notion of Universal Dovetailing). some of them with structure, some of them do not. That is ambiguous. They all have some structure. But I am OK, as some have internal and external (to them, relatively) random data, also. It is isomorphic to some subset of the mathematical multiverse Too much fuzzy. It depends of your starting assumption. multiverse is usually used in the context of QM. But neither QM, nor ~QM is assumed in the UD Argument. The UD argument is deductive (not entirely in step 8 as it is intended to apply on 'reality' and use Occam razor). It shows that if you survive with a digital brain, then you survive in the infinitely many arithmetical brain, and physics, to remain a stable appearance has no choice to exploit an infinite self-multiplication. UDA reduces partially the mind-body problem (my job) to a body problem in arithmetic. It is a problem. Not a solution of a problem (except that in the arithmetical translation of the UDA (AUDA), we can already interview the universal machine (Löbian one) on that problem, and they tell us that Plato seems less foolish than Aristotle. or the boltzmann aleatory structures. Same remark. Keep in mind that if we accept the existence of a physical reality, we meta-reason to find the deepest laws of reality, and be open that physics might not be the fundamental theory. Or can be emulated by UDA. Yes. Note that the UD emulation is entirely deterministic (in the 3p), and hopefully partially deterministic in the 1p (plural) view. The only additional merit is the use of few initial assumptions. I think you miss the point. I am just saying that if comp is correct, then adding anything to those initial assumption is a redundant form of conceptual treachery. But to emulate everithing possible with few assumptions is not a merit IMHO. You do miss the point. With all my respect. The emulation is only a manner of formulating the problem precisely, that is, mathematically. I´m not trying to be harsh. No problem. I could look like a philosopher, defending some theory. But that's not what I do, and did. I am a logician, and computer scientist, explaining that if you say yes to the comp doctor, then (assuming you have enough logical cognitive ability) to reduce the comp mind body problem into body problem in arithmetic. Then I show that we can interview universal machine having such cognitive ability, translating indeed the problem into a sequence of problems in arithmetic. At first sight Plotinus and the mystics are closer to the Löbian numbers than Aristotle. I mean in term of coherent whole. I just want to put my impressions in words. The platoninc world of ideas is then ONE of the many possible infinite whoknows that the UDA can produce. Well, it is just the sigma_1 complete part of a vastly bigger arithmetical reality (pi_1, sigma_24, pi_1000, etc.)) It is important to keep in mind the difference between the computable part of the arithmetical reality, with the non computable part, and the non provable part, by any machines,
Re: Bruno against Plato
Thanks for the clarification. But for what refer to the questions i asked, I find that my initial assumptions are broadly correct. I find the platonism of the UDA very different from the Platonism of Plato. despite the merits that the hypothesis of mechanism may have to clarify other questions. 2013/12/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 10 Dec 2013, at 12:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/12/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 10 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It seems to me that your invocation of platonism is wrong. For Plato the reality is a shadow of the perfect world of ideas, universals that we can remember by anamnesis. OK. But for you reality is a partial dream, Not at all. Only physical reality. And it is not one dream, it is what result from an infinity of dreams, by the FPI on arithmetic. (FPI = first person indeterminacy, *on* the complete UD emulation in arithmetic). but coherent or robust product of the aleatory Dovetailer Machine, + The FPI. and sometimes we have access to that nonsense by our dreams and hallucinations. By comp, and the FPI on all computations going through our comp state (which exists theoretically, as we work in the comp theory). So in fact the reality, as the the platonic realm is just the opposite of the one of the UDA: it is full of structure and perfect, while the UDA produces every kind of thing possible. Only computations. Computer science shows this to be a complex mathematical structure, structured differently from the different points of view of a machines, which themselves obeys the non trivial laws of self-reference. It is full of structure. Where that structure come from? They follow from the laws of addition and multiplication and logic, basically from: 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 The TOE has no other axioms. (Only definitions). Note that most scientific theories admit those axioms. I see all computatons possible coming from the UDA, You mean the UD (the universal dovetailer). UDA is for the UD Argument (UDA is only the name of a deductive argument based on the notion of Universal Dovetailing). some of them with structure, some of them do not. That is ambiguous. They all have some structure. But I am OK, as some have internal and external (to them, relatively) random data, also. It is isomorphic to some subset of the mathematical multiverse Too much fuzzy. It depends of your starting assumption. multiverse is usually used in the context of QM. But neither QM, nor ~QM is assumed in the UD Argument. The UD argument is deductive (not entirely in step 8 as it is intended to apply on 'reality' and use Occam razor). It shows that if you survive with a digital brain, then you survive in the infinitely many arithmetical brain, and physics, to remain a stable appearance has no choice to exploit an infinite self-multiplication. UDA reduces partially the mind-body problem (my job) to a body problem in arithmetic. It is a problem. Not a solution of a problem (except that in the arithmetical translation of the UDA (AUDA), we can already interview the universal machine (Löbian one) on that problem, and they tell us that Plato seems less foolish than Aristotle. or the boltzmann aleatory structures. Same remark. Keep in mind that if we accept the existence of a physical reality, we meta-reason to find the deepest laws of reality, and be open that physics might not be the fundamental theory. Or can be emulated by UDA. Yes. Note that the UD emulation is entirely deterministic (in the 3p), and hopefully partially deterministic in the 1p (plural) view. The only additional merit is the use of few initial assumptions. I think you miss the point. I am just saying that if comp is correct, then adding anything to those initial assumption is a redundant form of conceptual treachery. But to emulate everithing possible with few assumptions is not a merit IMHO. You do miss the point. With all my respect. The emulation is only a manner of formulating the problem precisely, that is, mathematically. I´m not trying to be harsh. No problem. I could look like a philosopher, defending some theory. But that's not what I do, and did. I am a logician, and computer scientist, explaining that if you say yes to the comp doctor, then (assuming you have enough logical cognitive ability) to reduce the comp mind body problem into body problem in arithmetic. Then I show that we can interview universal machine having such cognitive ability, translating indeed the problem into a sequence of problems in arithmetic. At first sight Plotinus and the mystics are closer to the Löbian numbers than Aristotle. I mean in term of coherent whole. I just want to put my impressions in words. The platoninc world of ideas is then ONE of the many possible infinite whoknows that the UDA can
