Re: Hypotheses

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Nov 2012, at 11:15, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Every great discovery of man (even in logic and mathematics)
started as a possibility (an insight,  conjecture, an intuition, a  
hypothesis )
in the mind of a man. The transistor, the basis of the computer,  
started

as a possibility. I offer this as a confirmation of Lucas and Penrose.



I don't see this at all. Lucas and Penrose does not based their  
insight on a possibility, but on a prejudice *against* a possibility.  
It is more like "heavier than air machine cannot fly, except living  
birds", or like "Indians cannot have a soul, for they would have known  
about Jesus". Lucas and Penrose just feel superior to machine, and  
make technical error in logic to justify this.




The  mind, at least in practice, is far superior to any computer.
For there are infinite possibilities.


Universal machine have infinite possibilities too.

Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-23, 14:41:13
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]


On 23 Nov 2012, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal,


I find this statement on http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mmk/papers/05-KI.html 
 :


"the Lucas-Penrose argument, which can be summarized as follows:
Since Gödel proved that in each sound formal system - which is strong
enough to formulate arithmetic - there exists a formula which  
cannot be proved
by the system (assumed the system is consistent), and since we  
(human beings)
can see that such a formula must be true, human and machine  
reasoning must
inevitably be different in nature, even in the restricted area of  
mathematical logic.
This attributes to human mathematical reasoning a very particular  
role, which

seems to go beyond rational thought. "

I can't think of an arithmetic example that LP could use, which  
they should have provided.
So as the question is posed, LP seem to be mistaken or at least  
incomplete themselves.


Gödel talk about axiomatic logical theories, or machine, theorem  
prover. It shows that for such theories or machine, we can find true  
statement that the machine or theory cannot prove.


But the reason why Penrose and Lucas is based on the fact that Gödel  
provide an algorithm for finding that true but non provable  
proposition. So machines excel in finding the true proposition about  
other little machine, that the little machine cannot find.


Löbian machine can prove theorem own Gödel's theorem, and develop  
transfinite autonomous self-extension in provability matter. G and  
G* remains correct at each state, and Becklemishev has found  
extension of G and G* formalizing the multimodal logic captureing  
the [] = [0] and the [alpha] transfinite provability level.


(But you need to study logic for making sense of this).







At any rate, many factual statements can obviously be true but  
unproveable

by a computer alone. That the sky is blue would be such a statement.


OK. We are not "obviously" more gifted than the computer.




Or
any piece of data not in its data bank.


No, the computer can assert much more than what is in the data bank.  
Much much more. What it deduces from it, what it induces from it,  
and all the hazardous theories, if not the lie and delusion etc.


Look at the difference between the string "z_n := (z_(n-1))^2 +1",  
which is the data bank content, and what the universal machine says  
from that :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ






So I conclude that LP are correct at least for most factual  
statements

and they only needed one example.



?

No LP are not correct. They can do what they pretend on simpler  
machine than themselves, and machines can do that too. But they  
cannot do that for themselves without changing themselves, and the  
machine can do that too. The machine already knows that it is a bit  
risky. If the truth is possible, the lies and errors are possible too.



Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/23/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-21, 12:23:40
Subject: Re: Reality Check: You Are Not a Computer Simulation [Audio]


On 21 Nov 2012, at 11:32, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I'm trying to understand your paper, but a seemingly much simpler
form of your argument keeps getting in the way. The
simpler form is the Lucas argument, discussed in  great
scholarly detail on

 http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/


To be franc there is nothing new in that paper, on the contrary it  
fails to mention the work done by Webb (not to talk on mine on  
Lucas, Benacerraf and the Penrose argument).


I have counted more than 50 errors in Lucas paper. Some are  
uninteresting, and

RE: Hypotheses

[Brent Meeker]

>-Original Message-
>From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 5:51 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Hypotheses
>
>
>A couple of hours ago, I was speaking to a young man who informed me that he
>can predict the future: he has visions or dreams, and they turn out to be
>true. I asked him for an example of this ability. He thought for a moment,
>explaining that there were really far too many examples to choose from, then
>settled on this one. During the recent war in Iraq, he had a dream about a
>buried train containing weapons. Two days later - you guessed it - he saw on
>the news that a buried train containing WMD's was discovered in Iraq! "And
>if that doesn't convince you that I'm psychic", my patient said (for that is
>what he was), "I don't know what will!"
>
>My question to the list: should I have stopped this man's antipsychotic
>medication?
>
>--Stathis Papaioannou

Not until he gave you a *prediction* that was unlikely and accurate.  It's easy
to convince yourself that you had thought of something *after the fact*.

Brent Meeker

>
>>From: rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: everything-list@eskimo.com
>>CC: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Hypotheses
>>Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:14:42 -0500
>>
>>Re the hypotheses---Social scientists, astronomers and CSI agents are the
>>only ones I'm aware of who routinely evaluate events after the fact.  The
>>best, IMHO, such as the historian Toynbee, fit facts to a model. At it's
>>worst, the model becomes the event and before long we're deep in
>>reification (the Achilles heel of Structural Functionalism) or that
>>favorite of lazy reporters, *abduction* (this is our favorite explanation,
>>so that must be what happened.)  Mathematicians, philosophers and those
>>with a good math and logic background prefer their battles timeless and
>>relatively absent of worldly references.  Great theater, but as Scott
>>Berkun noted in his excellent
>>article<<http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm>> just because the
>>logic holds together, doesn't mean it's true.  Or correct.  Or
>>anything--other than consistent.
>>
>>But logic is an inestimable tool if used to evaluate models such as those
>>proposed, developed and ridden into the dirt by many prominent social
>>scientists.  It is always refreshing to see a lumbering behemoth like
>>structural functionalism (a sociological model) dismantled by a skilled
>>logician who knows reification when he sees it (saw a little of that with
>>Lee Corbins' excellent rant.)  But it would be even better to see these
>>tools applied to truly strange events that take place in the real
>>world---things that Sheldrake writes about, for example.   Things that
>>*happen* to us all.
>>
>>Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen.  It's the knee-jerk reaction of
>>most mathematicians and logicians to deride real world events as
>>"coincidence," when in fact, they are comparing the event to mathematical
>>certainty, and logical clarity.  They might say, "Why evaluate Sheldrake's
>>"precognitive" dogs in terms of a physics model, because Sheldrake's dogs
>>are not really precognitive."  That protocol (if you can call it that)
>>doesn't even rise to the level of *bad* abduction.   It's a protocol that
>>closes doors rather than opens them, is not designed to divine new
>>information, and is neither analytic *nor* synthetic.  Worst of all, it
>>claims to be science when it fact, it is preordained belief.  In other
>>words, it's okay to bend the rules and prejudge a variable as long as you
>>first call it "rubbish."
>>
>>Slip-ups aside,  I would like to see a rigorous application of the powerful
>>tools of philosophy, logic and mathematics applied to the study areas of
>>social science, i.e. the real world.  Physicists are great at telling us
>>why the rings of Saturn have braids, but terrible (or worse than that,
>>dismissive) of events that occur involving consciousness. (Social
>>scientists are no better---they fall back on things like structural
>>functionalism).  I suggest its time for the social scientists to let the
>>logicians and mathematicians have a look at the data, and it's time for the
>>logicians and mathematicians to enter the real world and make an honest
>>attempt at trying to explain some strange phenomena.

Mathematicians and logicians per se have special qualifications to explain
phenomena.  Mathematics and logic are just about relations between statements
depending on general terms like "and", "or", "not", "for all",... completely
independent of the ontological and epistemological referents of the statements.

What you need are experimental scientists and magicians.  Actually some
scientists have addressed strange phenomena.  See Vic Stenger's "Physics and
Psychics" and Richard Wiseman's "Deception and Self-deception: Investigating
Psychics".

Brent Meeker
>

Re: Hypotheses

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 06-juin-05, à 07:14, rmiller a écrit :

Slip-ups aside,  I would like to see a rigorous application of the 
powerful tools of philosophy, logic and mathematics applied to the 
study areas of social science, i.e. the real world.  Physicists are 
great at telling us why the rings of Saturn have braids, but terrible 
(or worse than that, dismissive) of events that occur involving 
consciousness. (Social scientists are no better---they fall back on 
things like structural functionalism).  I suggest its time for the 
social scientists to let the logicians and mathematicians have a look 
at the data, and it's time for the logicians and mathematicians to 
enter the real world and make an honest attempt at trying to explain 
some strange phenomena.


That asking too much?



In the long run, it could be a nice and useful project. Today it is 
premature I'm afraid.

Logic is not yet applied to physics, except by a minority.
Scientific attitude is still despised in most of the human science, and 
even in a big part of "exact" science.
Argument against cannabis, against the Irak war, against the "yes" or 
the "no" for the european constitution are full or purely logical 
errors;  of the type of confusion between "p -> q" and "q -> p" 
(actually that sort of errors grows exponentially since the last 20 
years).


Yes you are asking too much right now. Most people still believe 
Science is reductionnist, when Science is by its very nature the most 
modest and antireductionnist conceivable attitude.


But go for it if you feel you can do it, sure. Now be careful of your 
own prejudices, in particular the notion of coincidence is infinitely 
tricky ...


Bruno


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

RE: Hypotheses

[rmiller]

At 12:50 AM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
A couple of hours ago, I was speaking to a young man who informed me that 
he can predict the future: he has visions or dreams, and they turn out to 
be true. I asked him for an example of this ability. He thought for a 
moment, explaining that there were really far too many examples to choose 
from, then settled on this one. During the recent war in Iraq, he had a 
dream about a buried train containing weapons. Two days later - you 
guessed it - he saw on the news that a buried train containing WMD's was 
discovered in Iraq! "And if that doesn't convince you that I'm psychic", 
my patient said (for that is what he was), "I don't know what will!"


My question to the list: should I have stopped this man's antipsychotic 
medication?


--Stathis Papaioannou

No.  Unless it was Disulfiram elixer. . .(sorry, couldn't resist.)

But were the antipsychotic meds *causing* the dreams or was it due to an 
insufficiently low dose?  In the early 1970s ketamine Hcl was the 
anesthetic of choice on kids for minor surgical procedures---it was good 
for 25 minutes, it preserved the laryngeal reflex--and you could always 
tell when they were coming out---they would elicit this gripping 
motion.  But in some cases it gave the kids OBEs.   Typical doc response: 
Yipes!  Let's use something else!
Now, they use ketamine ONLY on Rover and Fluffy.  Gives 'em big pupils for 
a couple of hours, and you don't really *care* what sensitive places they 
visited while they were under.


As for precognition. . while doing research for a book I authored in the 
mid-eighties, I first tracked nuclear clouds across the US--then went to 
the libraries in the paths of the debris clouds to see what was taking 
place as the radioactive material passed overhead.  There were some strange 
coincidences, but that's probably all they were.  However, there was one 
thing that impressed me---those in the "creative" professions occasionally 
conjure up artwork that, in retrospect, appears to be a precognitive 
"shadow" of an event taking place days or weeks later.  The day before the 
worlds' first nuclear test, the NY Times had a couple of sly articles in 
the editorial section that alluded to the nuke,test.  One article, for 
example, was titled, "A Gadget Long Needed."  There was a book review about 
three stories:  Two were titled, "A Fiery Lake" and "Solano." Now, of 
course, the NYT also had a reporter present at Los Alamos, so they probably 
wanted to scoop everyone else.   Precognition score:  probably zero.   But 
then there was the weird little cartoon called "Flyin' Jenny" which was 
found in the secondary papers---in places like Mason City, Iowa and 
Houston, TX.  on July 15, 1945 the main character (Flyin' Jenny)  picked up 
her microphone and said: "Is there fire at the end of that gadget?"   To 
me, that's pushing the coincidence envelope.



RM  

RE: Hypotheses

[rmiller]

At 12:50 AM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
A couple of hours ago, I was speaking to a young man who informed me that 
he can predict the future: he has visions or dreams, and they turn out to 
be true. I asked him for an example of this ability. He thought for a 
moment, explaining that there were really far too many examples to choose 
from, then settled on this one. During the recent war in Iraq, he had a 
dream about a buried train containing weapons. Two days later - you 
guessed it - he saw on the news that a buried train containing WMD's was 
discovered in Iraq! "And if that doesn't convince you that I'm psychic", 
my patient said (for that is what he was), "I don't know what will!"


My question to the list: should I have stopped this man's antipsychotic 
medication?


--Stathis Papaioannou

No.  Unless it was Disulfiram elixer. . .(sorry, couldn't resist.)

But were the antipsychotic meds *causing* the dreams or was it due to an 
insufficiently low dose?  In the early 1970s ketamine Hcl was the 
anesthetic of choice on kids for minor surgical procedures---it was good 
for 25 minutes, it preserved the laryngeal reflex--and you could always 
tell when they were coming out---they would elicit this gripping 
motion.  But in some cases it gave the kids OBEs.   Typical doc response: 
Yipes!  Let's use something else!
Now, they use ketamine ONLY on Rover and Fluffy.  Gives 'em big pupils for 
a couple of hours, and you don't really *care* what sensitive places they 
visited while they were under.


As for precognition. . while doing research for a book I authored in the 
mid-eighties, I first tracked nuclear clouds across the US--then went to 
the libraries in the paths of the debris clouds to see what was taking 
place as the radioactive material passed overhead.  There were some strange 
coincidences, but that's probably all they were.  However, there was one 
thing that impressed me---those in the "creative" professions occasionally 
conjure up artwork that, in retrospect, appears to be a precognitive 
"shadow" of an event taking place days or weeks later.  The day before the 
worlds' first nuclear test, the NY Times had a couple of sly articles in 
the editorial section that alluded to the nuke,test.  One article, for 
example, was titled, "A Gadget Long Needed."  There was a book review about 
three stories:  Two were titled, "A Fiery Lake" and "Solano." Now, of 
course, the NYT also had a reporter present at Los Alamos, so they probably 
wanted to scoop everyone else.   Precognition score:  probably zero.   But 
then there was the weird little cartoon called "Flyin' Jenny" which was 
found in the secondary papers---in places like Mason City, Iowa and 
Houston, TX.  on July 15, 1945 the main character (Flyin' Jenny)  picked up 
her microphone and said: "Is there fire at the end of that gadget?"   To 
me, that's pushing the coincidence envelope.



RM  

RE: Hypotheses

[Stathis Papaioannou]

A couple of hours ago, I was speaking to a young man who informed me that he 
can predict the future: he has visions or dreams, and they turn out to be 
true. I asked him for an example of this ability. He thought for a moment, 
explaining that there were really far too many examples to choose from, then 
settled on this one. During the recent war in Iraq, he had a dream about a 
buried train containing weapons. Two days later - you guessed it - he saw on 
the news that a buried train containing WMD's was discovered in Iraq! "And 
if that doesn't convince you that I'm psychic", my patient said (for that is 
what he was), "I don't know what will!"


My question to the list: should I have stopped this man's antipsychotic 
medication?


--Stathis Papaioannou


From: rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
CC: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hypotheses
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:14:42 -0500

Re the hypotheses---Social scientists, astronomers and CSI agents are the 
only ones I'm aware of who routinely evaluate events after the fact.  The 
best, IMHO, such as the historian Toynbee, fit facts to a model. At it's 
worst, the model becomes the event and before long we're deep in 
reification (the Achilles heel of Structural Functionalism) or that 
favorite of lazy reporters, *abduction* (this is our favorite explanation, 
so that must be what happened.)  Mathematicians, philosophers and those 
with a good math and logic background prefer their battles timeless and 
relatively absent of worldly references.  Great theater, but as Scott 
Berkun noted in his excellent 
article<> just because the 
logic holds together, doesn't mean it's true.  Or correct.  Or 
anything--other than consistent.


But logic is an inestimable tool if used to evaluate models such as those 
proposed, developed and ridden into the dirt by many prominent social 
scientists.  It is always refreshing to see a lumbering behemoth like 
structural functionalism (a sociological model) dismantled by a skilled 
logician who knows reification when he sees it (saw a little of that with 
Lee Corbins' excellent rant.)  But it would be even better to see these 
tools applied to truly strange events that take place in the real 
world---things that Sheldrake writes about, for example.   Things that 
*happen* to us all.


Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen.  It's the knee-jerk reaction of 
most mathematicians and logicians to deride real world events as 
"coincidence," when in fact, they are comparing the event to mathematical 
certainty, and logical clarity.  They might say, "Why evaluate Sheldrake's 
"precognitive" dogs in terms of a physics model, because Sheldrake's dogs 
are not really precognitive."  That protocol (if you can call it that) 
doesn't even rise to the level of *bad* abduction.   It's a protocol that 
closes doors rather than opens them, is not designed to divine new 
information, and is neither analytic *nor* synthetic.  Worst of all, it 
claims to be science when it fact, it is preordained belief.  In other 
words, it's okay to bend the rules and prejudge a variable as long as you 
first call it "rubbish."


Slip-ups aside,  I would like to see a rigorous application of the powerful 
tools of philosophy, logic and mathematics applied to the study areas of 
social science, i.e. the real world.  Physicists are great at telling us 
why the rings of Saturn have braids, but terrible (or worse than that, 
dismissive) of events that occur involving consciousness. (Social 
scientists are no better---they fall back on things like structural 
functionalism).  I suggest its time for the social scientists to let the 
logicians and mathematicians have a look at the data, and it's time for the 
logicians and mathematicians to enter the real world and make an honest 
attempt at trying to explain some strange phenomena.


That asking too much?

RM




_
Free wallpapers on Level 9 http://level9.ninemsn.com.au/default.aspx