Re: Flies and ultimate reality

2012-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Dec 2012, at 04:10, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/24/2012 7:27 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/24/2012 3:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:


Dear Roger,

Flies can unify their vision because the distance between  
their individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can  
still manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in  
these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance  
between a pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then  
it is impossible to have a mutually commuting set of  
observations. This is the problem of omniscience.


I have two eyes and no problem unifying them.  Vision takes place  
in the brain, not the eyes.


Brent
--

Hi Brent,

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.


Apparently.  You are basing this impossibility on a literal  
infinity - not just very very many?  In that case I'd agree  
because the literal infinity is itself impossible.


Brent
--
Pfft, really? Oh my, you are  hard up to save an obviously false  
idea! If the infinity is merely potential, the situation is worse!  
Think about it, how many different 1p are *possible*?  Many, at  
least! I submit to you that the number must be infinite. This would  
be equivalent to an infinite number of propositions.


The number of human 1p is infinite if you let the human skull growing  
arbitrarily.





It should be obvious that to  find a SAT solution to such is  
impossible for any classical system.


SAT is Sigma_0. SAT is decidable. We can find all the SAT solutions,  
if patient enough. No doubt that it can take some time to see if a  
classical propositional formula with 10^1000 propositional variables  
is a tautology. P = NP would not necessarily help, because the  
polynomial bounding complexity can be quite growing if it has big  
coefficient.


For biology and theology the interesting things happens on the border  
of the Sigma_1 complete structures.
Only bankers and engineers really need to talk the Sigma_0, and  
subtractability issues. By comp, we will have to derive why, from the  
geometry and topology of the border of the Sigma_1, seen in 1p. UDA  
and AUDA illustrates that the border get his geometry and topology  
from self-reference, starting from sigma_1 sentences (which represent  
in arithmetic the UD states).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Flies and ultimate reality

2012-12-24 Thread Stephen P. King

On 12/24/2012 11:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

IMHO Only the Supreme Monad (the One, God), and perhaps flies
to some extent can clearly see ultimate reality, which means from
all perspectives at once. How do flies unify their vision ?


Dear Roger,

Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their 
individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still manage 
to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these conditions. 
When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a pair of eyes and 
the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to have a mutually 
commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience.




We ourselves are incapable of that,  we can only see reality only
from our perspective, and with some distortions.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-22, 12:59:35
Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett 
rightafter all ?


On 12/22/2012 7:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

We defeat Dennett by showing that the regress cannot occur when there are 
physical resources required by the computations for each level of the 
recursion. We can cutoff recursions in our algorithms with code: if count of 
loops is 10, stop. But physical systems can not count, they just run out of 
juice after a while


Yes. For example, in the simulation argument, you still end up having to have 
an ultimate reality which is no longer a simulation.

Hi Telmo,

 Why? Why does there need to be a ultimate reality that is some kind of irreducible ground? 
It is unnecessary to postulate such if we look at things from a non-well founded or Net of Indra point of 
view. Any set of objects can act as a ground for some other, objects are, ultimately, just bundles of relatively stable 
persistent properties. This way of thinking is very different from the atoms in a void view...








But if there is no display, we do not need an observer self,
and are possibly ending up with Michael Dennett's materialist
concept of the self. This might be called epi-phenominalism.
The self is simply an expression of the brain.


I don't believe it is just an expression of the brain (I suspect you don't 
either), but part of the reason why I don't believe is 1p, so I cannot 
communicate it (can I?). I don't know. I tried at dinner parties and got funny 
looks.


 I do think that the consciousness is an expression of the brain *and* all 
of its environment that molds its behavior. It is silly to think that skin is 
the boundary that a mind associates with!


Agreed.

 OK! ;-)



We cannot forget causal closure in our reasoning about 1p!
 Telmo, can't you see that the defining characteristic of 1p is that one 
cannot communicate it?


I can.

Only I can know exactly what it is like to be me. So I can infer or bet that you have a 
what it is like to be Telmo but I cannot know it, by definition and this 
relation is symmetrical between any pair of conscious entities.


Ok, but why shouldn't I just believe in solipsism then?

 Because solipsism is self-contradictory, we can believe in it tacitly, but 
once we think of yourself actively, it falls apart as a theory. Even the self 
that one was previously, that one can recollect or remember, is not oneself 
now. The self v other relation actively denies solipsism, and yet we cannot 
have certainty of what we cannot directly experience. The trick is to 
understand that we can only have certainty of our own experience of 
self-in-the-moment, as Descartes explained so well in Meditations.





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Flies and ultimate reality

2012-12-24 Thread meekerdb

On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Roger,

Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is 
small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set of 
observations in these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a 
pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to have a 
mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience. 


I have two eyes and no problem unifying them.  Vision takes place in the brain, 
not the eyes.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Flies and ultimate reality

2012-12-24 Thread Stephen P. King

On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Roger,

Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their 
individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still 
manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these 
conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a pair 
of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to 
have a mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of 
omniscience. 


I have two eyes and no problem unifying them.  Vision takes place in 
the brain, not the eyes.


Brent
--

Hi Brent,

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. :'(

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Flies and ultimate reality

2012-12-24 Thread meekerdb

On 12/24/2012 3:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Roger,

Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their individual eyes is 
small and the number is finite. One can still manage to get a mutually commuting set 
of observations in these conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance 
between a pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is impossible to 
have a mutually commuting set of observations. This is the problem of omniscience. 


I have two eyes and no problem unifying them.  Vision takes place in the brain, not the 
eyes.


Brent
--

Hi Brent,

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.


Apparently.  You are basing this impossibility on a literal infinity - not just very very 
many?  In that case I'd agree because the literal infinity is itself impossible.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Flies and ultimate reality

2012-12-24 Thread Stephen P. King

On 12/24/2012 7:27 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/24/2012 3:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 12/24/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Roger,

Flies can unify their vision because the distance between their 
individual eyes is small and the number is finite. One can still 
manage to get a mutually commuting set of observations in these 
conditions. When one has an arbitrarily large distance between a 
pair of eyes and the number of them is infinite then it is 
impossible to have a mutually commuting set of observations. This 
is the problem of omniscience. 


I have two eyes and no problem unifying them.  Vision takes place in 
the brain, not the eyes.


Brent
--

Hi Brent,

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.


Apparently.  You are basing this impossibility on a literal infinity - 
not just very very many?  In that case I'd agree because the literal 
infinity is itself impossible.


Brent
--
Pfft, really? Oh my, you are  hard up to save an obviously false 
idea! If the infinity is merely potential, the situation is worse! Think 
about it, how many different 1p are *possible*?  Many, at least! I 
submit to you that the number must be infinite. This would be equivalent 
to an infinite number of propositions. It should be obvious that to  
find a SAT solution to such is impossible for any classical system.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.