Re: Lost and not lost 1 (Plan)
On 11/12/2008, at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain >>> why >>> I think that: IF we assume that we are machine, >> >> >> Never understood what people meant by "a machine". > > Actually I was thinking "digital machine" or digitalizable machine. > Like "Mechanism" will always mean digital mechanism. > I will explain this later. > To define the notion of machine in general is not easy. With the usual > physical theories most things are machine and are even digital or > analog but still digitalizable machine. > I prefer not working with precise definitions, and instead illustrate > the concept through the reasoning. Yes, entendu - with the condition, perhaps, that wherever possible, we reify somehow I want to bring this whole thing down to 'street level' a bit more I can quickly grasp something if it is presented to me as an experience; qualia play a role early on - I have to be able to 'sense' it On the other hand: I understand intellectually many things that I have never experienced - these things leave me cold. Your reasoning does not - so it already seems less than abstract to me which is good. So: I am usually happiest if the output of the reasoning is an experience or its description - not an abstraction Mechanism is already a good reification - not just an object but a process > > > The main idea is that a machine or a mechanism is something that is a > finite combination of a finite number of elementary parts (or locally > finite, since it could grow). In all circumstances, it's behaviour > can be > explained or reduced to the predictible local behavior of the > elementary parts. When the elementary parts are many, this leads to > differential equations. > When not so many, it gives rise to difference equations or recursive > processes. = fractalism (point of view)? This may mean the simplest machines that exist are probably fractal in nature, already self-referential. That already evokes consciousness, doesn't it? Fractals are extremely self- referential highly arresting patterns. Consciousness may only require recursion to emerge (assuming MAT) It seems to me that 'consciousness' is deeply embedded in the very idea of what a machine is - not Descartian dualism for me - just the result of recursive patterning reaching a critical simplicity > > The very idea of "explanation" often implicitly or explicitly relies > on mechanism, or on "a" mechanism. An explanation is then, something with logical connections that is itself in some ways machine? Does not an explanation usually also *specify* a description of the thing explained? A description is always the result of a certain perspective. Is the perspective of the description able to be formalised? > > > >> I've always thought >> I was a machine. > > This is not obvious. Except to he who believes it or feels it to be right > Is the system Earth-Moon really a machine? > Already with the rough definition given above, we could doubt it, if > only because the Moon-Earth system is usually described by"infinite" > real variable functions. The real functions operate on the real > numbers, the "points" of the line, which are infinite "objects". With > quantum mechanics the apparent real things get digital, but if you > keep the collapse of the wave, it is hard to even describe you as > either a physical thing still less a machine. Well, yes. This is what is usually referred to as "splitting" (wave collapse) which always sounded to me like magic Decoherence kind of explains it > With the many world, the > "usual" mechanist explanation of the observer is preserved, except for > the classical mechanics behind. (Albeit only logicians, to be sure, > have provided, computable or mechanist function on the reals with non > computable derivatives). Mr Spock pointy ears are growing on you right now - wear them with pride > > > And what about the "believers"? Jacques Arsac, a french computer > scientist wrote a book beginning by "I am a Catholic so I cannot > believe in Artificial Intelligence, and its point is that we are not > machine. Is this a case where the Catholics are maybe right on something? I'm also happy to 'not be a machine' if Professor Father Arsac has God's authority over it > Renault, the car firm, made an advertising based on the idea > that "you are not a machine Did they sell more or less cars as a result of this? > > But the real trouble with the "mechanist idea" is its apparent > elimination of the subject, it explains consciousness "away". So I'm happy with that too already. We aren't here. The universe is a joke > Not only does > mechanism not solve the mind body problem, but when mechanism and > materialism are combined, as is usually still done, you get > nihilism. This is really my point. I was just anticipating. You me
Re: Lost and not lost 1 (Plan)
Hi Kim, On 10 Dec 2008, at 06:29, Kim Jones wrote: > > Ok - Bruno, I will take this very slowly. It is the idea. I will be very slow myself. > You have a habit of saying > 10,000 fascinating things in one post and staggering me, so one at a > time: I did it on purpose, so as to give you different angle of "attack". > > > On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain why >> I think that: IF we assume that we are machine, > > > Never understood what people meant by "a machine". Actually I was thinking "digital machine" or digitalizable machine. Like "Mechanism" will always mean digital mechanism. I will explain this later. To define the notion of machine in general is not easy. With the usual physical theories most things are machine and are even digital or analog but still digitalizable machine. I prefer not working with precise definitions, and instead illustrate the concept through the reasoning. The main idea is that a machine or a mechanism is something which is a finite combination of a finite number of elementary parts (or locally finite, it could grow) and which behavior in all circumstances can be explained or reduced to the predictible local behavior of the elementary parts). When the occurence of the elementary parts are many, this leads to differential equation, when not so many, it gives rise to difference equation or recursive processes. The very idea of "explanation" is often implicitly or explicitly rely on mechanism, or on "a" mechanism. > I've always thought > I was a machine. This is not obvious. Is the system Earth-Moon really a machine? Already with the rough definition given above, we could doubt it, if only because the Moon-Earth system is usually described by"infinite" real variable functions. The real functions operate on the real numbers, the "points" of the line, which are infinite "objects". With quantum mechanics the apparent real things get digital, but if you keep the collapse of the wave, it is hard to even describe you as either a physical thing still less a machine. With the many world, the "usual" mechanist explanation of the observer is preserved, except for the classical mechanics behind. (Albeit only logicians, to be sure, have provided, computable or mechanist function on the reals with non computable derivatives). And what about the "believers"? Jacques Arsac, a french computer scientist wrote a book beginning by "I am a Catholic so I cannot believe in Artificial Intelligence, and its point is that we are not machine. Renault, the car firm, made an advertising based on the idea that "you are not a machine". But the real trouble with the "mechanist idea" is its apparent elimination of the subject, it explains consciousness "away". Not only mechanism does not solve the mind body problem, but when mechanism and materialism are combined, as it is usually still done, you get nihilism. This is really my point. I was just anticipating. No need to ask question here. You will soon understand this by yourself with the point "1)" and "2)". Well, we will see. > C'est evident. Consequently it surprises me when > people question it. It would already be a success for me if you begin to doubt mechanism. Eventually you will perhaps (if you are patient enough) understand why no machine can really believe in Mechanism. The logic of mechanism will take us "near inconsistency". It is impossible to take it for granted. And things are worst than that: if we are machines, we cannot know which machine we are, but we can bet (and argue that "nature" has already bet on mechanism, etc.). > I'm surprised even that it took until Descartes to > achieve this enlightenment although you will probably say that > Plotinus was already onto it. Plotinus and Descartes are aware that, by deciding to preserve the soul, or the person, or consciousness (etc.), matter become doubtful. "malin génies" appears (Descartes), indeterminateness appears (Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus). Descartes has understood that it has to introduce a God, to preserve the consistency of mechanism. It is a sort of superconsistency axiom, which could easily lead to inconsistency. Descartes gived rise to the "modern mind body problem". Descartes used "soul" instead of "mind". > Presumably anything that isn't some > phantasm that defies the laws of physics - and therefore probably > cannot exist - is going to be a machine of some sort. > > Have I got anywhere near it or am I not even wrong on that? You are wrong, but don't worry, almost everybody is wrong on this, and this by assuming comp, and assuming, for now, that my own reasoning is correct, which I hope you will understand by yourself if patient enough. I am probably also, wrong, at some level. All machine could be wrong on that, but we can be less and less wrong. The pr
Re: Lost and not lost 1 (Plan)
Kim (and Bruno, if you allow me to intrude): Bruno's "IF" depends IMO on how one is defining "machine". Evidently NOT a mechanical contraption driven by 'energy'(?) input and built-in controls that are operated by a 'machinist' of higher consciousness. Then again Descartes? I would call his point a 'machine WITH a ghost' what he calls 'soul'. I would name it a "complexity of machine and function' calling a machine anything that DOES something (even that is questionable). In many minds 'machine' may imply a design. (Just haphazardously, or as the ominous ID?) So, to reflect to Kim's question, "what else?" - could mean: different from what? (Complexity is my word for 'ensemble', because the latter does not postulate any interrrelations - interactive(?) functions(?). ) A machine is not a mere 'ensemble'. Nor is a universe. Maybe my poor French is inadequate. John On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok - Bruno, I will take this very slowly. You have a habit of saying > 10,000 fascinating things in one post and staggering me, so one at a > time: > > On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain why > > I think that: IF we assume that we are machine, > > > Never understood what people meant by "a machine". I've always thought > I was a machine. C'est evident. Consequently it surprises me when > people question it. I'm surprised even that it took until Descartes to > achieve this enlightenment although you will probably say that > Plotinus was already onto it. Presumably anything that isn't some > phantasm that defies the laws of physics - and therefore probably > cannot exist - is going to be a machine of some sort. > > Have I got anywhere near it or am I not even wrong on that? > > Why should it be news to anyone that we are machines - I've been > assuming it all along. Now you will tell me how I should be - what?? > Experiencing reality? Interpreting reality? Both? > > Everything (appears to my conscious mind to be) an ensemble of > something else(s) including moi et toi, and it all works somehow in co- > operation and the universe exists - ergo we are machines - we can > extrapolate from this that the universe is a gigantic Machine since we > appear to be a part of an ensemble as a machine element. Ergo the > Multiverse exists because it's all a fractal > > > What's the other option - that never made it into my brain? > > > Genial!! - allons-y > > > K > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost 1 (Plan)
Ok - Bruno, I will take this very slowly. You have a habit of saying 10,000 fascinating things in one post and staggering me, so one at a time: On 10/12/2008, at 4:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Here, below, is the plan of my heroic attempt (indeed) to explain why > I think that: IF we assume that we are machine, Never understood what people meant by "a machine". I've always thought I was a machine. C'est evident. Consequently it surprises me when people question it. I'm surprised even that it took until Descartes to achieve this enlightenment although you will probably say that Plotinus was already onto it. Presumably anything that isn't some phantasm that defies the laws of physics - and therefore probably cannot exist - is going to be a machine of some sort. Have I got anywhere near it or am I not even wrong on that? Why should it be news to anyone that we are machines - I've been assuming it all along. Now you will tell me how I should be - what?? Experiencing reality? Interpreting reality? Both? Everything (appears to my conscious mind to be) an ensemble of something else(s) including moi et toi, and it all works somehow in co- operation and the universe exists - ergo we are machines - we can extrapolate from this that the universe is a gigantic Machine since we appear to be a part of an ensemble as a machine element. Ergo the Multiverse exists because it's all a fractal What's the other option - that never made it into my brain? Genial!! - allons-y K > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 06/12/2008, at 1:03 AM, John Mikes wrote: > Kim, > I enjoyed your bilingual blurb 'around' music, as I guess. > Is mathematique (numbers?) something like music? a gift one either > has or not? Every gene helps, I suppose. I have musicians on both sides of my family, one of whom is a distinguished composer (Alfred Hill 1869-1960) I don't believe that talent is the sine qua non of musical fortitude though. Creativity CAN be taught - we don't have to wait for geniuses to come along Imagine if the science world actually depended solely on the the Newtons, the Einsteins, the Schroedingers etc. to do the day to day scientific stuff. I would say that everybody should have at least a modest degree of scientific understanding or appreciation; the job of education, the business I am in - this would be far more valuable in the long run than pouring billions into funding an academy to find and nurture geniuses (the "Gifted and Talented Syndrome" - if you aren't G & T you can just go rot; so says today's education world) Same point holds for music - not every kid who learns to play the violin becomes an Andre Rieu, but anybody with a modest ability on the fiddle will appreciate a certain aspect of music a whole lot better than somebody who never picked up a musical instrument in his life > David Bohm said (and I have great esteem for the man) that numbers > are human creations. Yeah - that would appear to be the 64 cent question. If he's right, some of us here may have been barking up the wrong tree for quite a while > If Bruno - and his cohorts - state that everything is just numbers - > integers in long series - (I still don't know if WITH functions > between them, or just the balnk series?) - I figure it after Bohm > that they found a 'tool' in this human invention to use as the > otherwise inaccessible 'materialization' of the feeling 'reality' or > call it 'essence of the world' etc., - (materialization meant in a > 'higher' sense than the figment (misconcept) of the physicists' > world of matter/energy(?) in their explanations of accessed and > misunderstood phenomena). I believe the mathematicalisation of Everything to be one of the most profoundly interesting developments in post-modern thinking. I do not NEED a material universe, except in the sense that without this perfect illusion(?) I might not be in a conscious state at all and therefore incapable of any qualia It excites the intellect and the intuition. It FEELS correct, but then so does going to church and burning incense and reciting catechism for some people. Let's just say it's a bit like a headache - you've got one if you think you've got one If it turns out that some Brain The Size Of A Planet (BTSOAP) can prove we are the dream of numbers then I am perfectly happy with that thought. Now all we need to work out is what the numbers in fact ARE > Your (and maybe mine) 'materialization' is "music". Thank you for that supremely useful insight John > I do not realize it into tunes but it in a vague sense of "IT" - > musical experience is closest, - I figure: as Bruno's 'numbers' - > and your 'ever existed' Eroica Symphony is just a notion of 'a' > realization... True, BUT I still hold that the Eroica existed BEFORE Ludwig van gave birth to it!! He merely DISCOVERED it sitting there and wrote it down. It's kind of like Dark Matter. Composing music is often like that; you have the feeling that you are not so much inventing something as discovering something. Suddenly you are being swept into the gravitational field of something you cannot see or touch - only feel. It gains shape only as an aural experience for some bizarre reason that nobody has yet understood Note - this is no argument for the existence of a God as some would say (Michaelangelo "seeing" the sculpture in the virgin block of marble etc) In the same breath I would say that the Everett no-collapse wave-state was clearly a discovery, not a construct. On the other hand, Niels Bohr and the Copenhagenists confabulated a dodgy, politically correct notion of the observer collapsing the wave function; no explanation, just a "happy ending" to the movie so people wouldn't ask for their twenty bucks back as they left the cinema... In music there are lots and lots of dodgy, ad-hoc, derivative, nonsensical essays that are clearly designed to generate market value - NOT communicate something fundamental about reality. Most Rock music (In My Extremely Humble View) is designed to hoodwink the brain in this way. It's all "as if" it were real music but lacks dimensional depth Any music designed to be listened to only at MEGA VOLUME is clearly trying to be better than it is. Volume of delivery gives a false importance to crappy musical design. Try listening to ACDC or Led Zeppelin at moderate or soft volume. Suddenly it's all smoke and mirrors > >
Re: Lost and not lost?
Kim, I enjoyed your bilingual blurb 'around' music, as I guess. Is mathematique (numbers?) something like music? a gift one either has or not? David Bohm said (and I have great esteem for the man) that numbers are human creations. If Bruno - and his cohorts - state that everything is just numbers - integers in long series - (I still don't know if WITH functions between them, or just the balnk series?) - I figure it after Bohm that they found a 'tool' in this human invention to use as the otherwise inaccessible 'materialization' of the feeling 'reality' or call it 'essence of the world' etc., - (materialization meant in a 'higher' sense than the figment (misconcept) of the physicists' world of matter/energy(?) in their explanations of accessed and misunderstood phenomena). Your (and maybe mine) 'materialization' is "music". I do not realize it into tunes but it in a vague sense of "IT" - musical experience is closest, - I figure: as Bruno's 'numbers' - and your 'ever existed' Eroica Symphony is just a notion of 'a' realization... If I may use the pronoun: "WE" have a hard time in our 'musical' predisposition to switch to numbers, even more so to express what we feel/think in the 'words' created for a baseless communication in the superficial average mental activity of humans. When I play I am absorbed, no numbers, no politix even no personal malaises - only the music. If my fingers goof a passage what I (innerly) heard right, I am desperate. This 'musical comp' IS our reality, not 'understood' or 'explainable' because these terms work only "in words". Another 'plane'(religion?) in the human - (sub?)conscious existence. There are many such 'planes' and it is hard to switch. What do you think? Bruno? Stathis? and my eternal critic: Brent? Musicalistically yours John M *> La vérité sort de la bouche des ignorants. (JM)<* On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > Hi Kim, > > > > > > On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > > >> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - > >> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no > >> substratum of primitive physical materiality? > >> > >> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te > >> serais infiniment reconnaisant > > > > > > > > To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho or > > bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding. > > > OK - accepted; I get this from mathematicians and physicists all the > time - and I have quite a few as friends. Nevertheless, if there was > one human on the planet who could do it, or at the very best make a > heroic attempt at it, I reckon YOU'RE THE ONE! > > Court jesters like me cannot understand mathematics, but we understand > the 'realities' described by mathematics through a kind of sixth > sense. We are also very good judges of character. Tu peux te sauver, > mais tu ne peux pas m'eschapper!!! > > > > > > What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it. > > > > I LOVE the Mandelbrot set. I intuitively feel that reality is fractal. > I do not know how I 'know' this. Please explain to me how I can know > something without really knowing something > > > > > > > > > Also, I don't want to bore the list too much, > > > I don't think all these 'brains the size of a planet' are being bored > by a different way of looking at the same data for once. Hopefully > they welcome it. > > > > > > and there are already > > many posts, so I will go extremely slowly. > > > Yes, there are many monks hunched over their manuscripts in cloisters > racking their brains by candle-light, trying to see in the data what > they have long ago decided is already there. > > > > > > > > You may be disappointed. > > > That nobody can explain reality without using mathematics? But reality > already IS - I don't see algebra floating around inside my living > room!! Maybe the universe is most ACCURATELY described in the > (devil's) details using the numbers but what about SIMPLIFYING it all > for once? > > Surely a FIVE YEAR OLD can sit at this table and appreciate some of > this stuff? Maybe a five year old can actually PUT something on the > table to be considered because the brains-the-size-of-a-planet have > forgotten that simplicity is a much more effective force for good than > complexity. > > There is much FOGWEED growing on this list. Maybe reality is too > simple to understand - as opposed to too complex. Let's get into a bit > of jardinage!!! > > > > > > In general mystic-open people like the > > conclusion, > > > > Well - I'm not into mystery, that's for sure. I don't trust people who > perpetuate mysteries. They are covering something up!!! I still expect > the conclusion to follow from the reasoning, but I happen to believe > that once you have cogitated on the mathematics, the output CAN be > described in plain English (o
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 03 Dec 2008, at 19:31, Brent Meeker wrote: >> ... A computation is a more sophisticated object, and >> digitalness makes all the difference. In a rock, I don't see any >> working digitalness, nor even analogs of this digitalness. > > Isn't this a matter of interpretation? Even the 1s and 0s of a > digital computer > are not really digital - they are just approximately high or low > voltage states > - and even in our most fundamental theory, i.e. quantum mechanics, > they are > described by continuous functions on a Hilbert space. So we might > consider the > motion of an atom in a rock to be zero is it less than some value > and 1 if it is > greater. Well, if this were true, it would just mean we have to take account of more instantiations on computations in the universal deployment, and so this is not relevant in the discussion. Yet I don't believe it. A high order complex computations similar to what a human brain does, is very demanding in robustness, large memory, subtle redundancy, etc... Quantitatively a rock could implements some short low invertebrate "experience" perhaps every billions years ... 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 02 Dec 2008, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> ... >>> - technical footnote to be seen by technically inclined >>> reader - >>> (*) I think that not so much people here realize that the Universal >>> Machine and the Universal Dovetailing are things very specific and >>> non >>> trivial. You can see an explicit Universal Dovetailer described in >>> the >>> language LISP by clicking on GEN et DU for a pdf here >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html >>> Or better, thanks to the crazily formidable work of H. Putnam, M. >>> Davis, J. Robinson, Y, Matiyasevitch, and with the help of J. Jones: >>> here is a purely equational presentation of a universal machine in >>> the >>> integers: >>> >>> There are 31 unknowns ranging on the non negative integers (= 0 >>> included): >>> A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, >>> Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and there are two parameters: Nu >>> and X. >>> >>> The solution of the following system of diophantine equations define, >>> taking together, one view, very precise here, of the mathematical >>> object that I am talking about. I think the Mandelbrot set is >>> another, >>> one, and of course a dovetailer in Lisp, another one. Robinson >>> Arithmetic gives yet another short one, expressible in first order >>> logic with the symbol 0,S, +, *, and very few axioms, and it is the >>> one needed to begin the interview of a lobian machine (which can >>> "known" they are universal). Without allowing any other symbols than >>> "=" and an implicit "E" quantifier, we can get a purely equational >>> definition of such universal system: for those who remember the W_i, >>> we have that X is in W_Nu (a universal relation) iff there exists >>> numbers A, B, C, ... such that >>> >>> >>> Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y >>> >>> ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 >>> >>> Qu = B^(5^60) >>> >>> La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 >>> >>> Th + 2Z = B^5 >>> >>> L = U + TTh >>> >>> E = Y + MTh >>> >>> N = Q^16 >>> >>> R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + >>> LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) >>> + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) >>> >>> P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 >>> >>> (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 >>> >>> 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 >>> >>> K = R + 1 + HP - H >>> >>> A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 >>> >>> C = 2R + 1 Ph >>> >>> D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga >>> >>> D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 >>> >>> F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 >>> >>> (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 >>> >>> This is an explicit "theory of everything" acceptable for a >>> computationalist. Assuming QM correct, Schroedinger equation (and the >>> phenomenological quantum collapse) have to be derived from that, by >>> those who believes in comp, or those who want to test comp. >>> Such equations determine a "consciousness flux", and matter emerges >>> in >>> a precise way from observational invariance. >>> No need, to understand this (at this stage). It can help to have >>> images later to understand the difference between a computation, >>> and a >>> description of a computation, and how computations can emerge from >>> number relation, and why this is non trivial. And things like that. >> I don't remember the W_i, but without doing the math I can accept >> that for a >> given value of Nu=j the above equations pick out some values of X >> which allow >> them to be satisfied by integer values of A...Ph, and you express >> this as X has >> property W_j. But what does it mean to say W_Nu is a "universal >> relation"? Has >> any explicit solution to this set of equations been found? > > > > W_i is the ith recursively enumerable set (having fixed some universal > system). It is the domain of the ith partial recursive function F_i. > All computation can be reduce in a problem of the sort J belongs to W_i. > For example, you can find a value of Nu so that positive X belongs to > W_Nu if and only if X is a prime number. Indeed the set of prime > numbers is recursively enumerable. > The diophantine equation above is a universal (in the sense of Turing, > or in the sense of Church thesis ...) diophantine equation. Very interesting. So is the set of values which make W_Nu the set of primes known? > > This has solved negatively Hilbert 10th problem: is there an algorithm > for solving diophantine equation?. Such an algorithm cannot exist > because it would solve the halting problem, by the relation above. > > Note that if the variable range over the real numbers, such algorithm > does exist (Sturm Liouville, Tarski). This shows that Diophantine > equation on the reals are really much simpler than on the natural > numbers or the integers. The real are an oversimplification of the > natural! > > I guess this can help to understand why I do not think a rock can > implement a complex computation. The intuition I g
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 02 Dec 2008, at 00:16, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Hi Kim, >> >> >> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - >>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no >>> substratum of primitive physical materiality? >>> >>> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te >>> serais infiniment reconnaisant >> >> >> >> To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho >> or >> bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding. > > > OK - accepted; I get this from mathematicians and physicists all the > time - and I have quite a few as friends. Nevertheless, if there was > one human on the planet who could do it, or at the very best make a > heroic attempt at it, I reckon YOU'RE THE ONE! > > Court jesters like me cannot understand mathematics, but we understand > the 'realities' described by mathematics through a kind of sixth > sense. We are also very good judges of character. Tu peux te sauver, > mais tu ne peux pas m'eschapper!!! Damned! > > > >> >> What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it. > > > > I LOVE the Mandelbrot set. I intuitively feel that reality is fractal. > I do not know how I 'know' this. Please explain to me how I can know > something without really knowing something It is like babies. They are born with the most sophisticated "universal computing machine" (their brain). yet they learn to use them even without instruction manual. Well, like kids with computer nowadays. You are so rich because you are a product of a very long and deep computation probably. At least. > > > > >> >> >> Also, I don't want to bore the list too much, > > > I don't think all these 'brains the size of a planet' are being bored > by a different way of looking at the same data for once. Hopefully > they welcome it. Perhaps they could appreciate a second pass (or a third, or a fourth, ...). Hmmm > > > > > >> and there are already >> many posts, so I will go extremely slowly. > > > Yes, there are many monks hunched over their manuscripts in cloisters > racking their brains by candle-light, trying to see in the data what > they have long ago decided is already there. That happens. > > > >> >> >> You may be disappointed. > > > That nobody can explain reality without using mathematics? No. You could be disappointed how things are simple. Just unusual. > But reality > already IS - I don't see algebra floating around inside my living > room!! Maybe the universe is most ACCURATELY described in the > (devil's) details using the numbers but what about SIMPLIFYING it all > for once? > > Surely a FIVE YEAR OLD can sit at this table and appreciate some of > this stuff? Sure, young people in general understand all this much more easily than older one. Like always. Too bad they pass exams with the old one. > Maybe a five year old can actually PUT something on the > table to be considered because the brains-the-size-of-a-planet have > forgotten that simplicity is a much more effective force for good than > complexity. That's the point. Especially the "matrix" generation. have you seen the better "thirteen floor", made from the novel by Daniel Galouye? Have you seen the movie "The prestige". It is better than my work you know. > > > There is much FOGWEED growing on this list. Maybe reality is too > simple to understand - as opposed to too complex. Let's get into a bit > of jardinage!!! Yes it is simple indeed. Probably not *that* simple. There are many traps. > > > > > >> In general mystic-open people like the >> conclusion, > > > > Well - I'm not into mystery, that's for sure. You reassure me. You will not be too much disappointed then. In fact only one (big) mystery will remain, but we will understand why. > I don't trust people who > perpetuate mysteries. They are covering something up!!! I still expect > the conclusion to follow from the reasoning, And from the hypotheses. That is wise. > but I happen to believe > that once you have cogitated on the mathematics, the output CAN be > described in plain English (or French) Sure. My shorter description in the Soccer language: Plato 1 --- Aristotle 0. (And I am not saying it is the end of the match!). > > > Why should it be that anybody devoid of a PhD in higher mathematics > and logic and computer science should be locked out of this > discussion? As I said to Russell recently, "I worship at the feet of > anybody who can understand this (mathematical) stuff" > > BUT > > I happen to believe (in my humble foolishness) that you can still > communicate these (really quite) momentous ideas in a way that the > 99.999% of humanity who don't inhabit universities for most of > their lives can understand Especially today. despite many promising discourses on "inter- disciplinary
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 02/12/2008, at 9:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:16:27AM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> Genial. Faites-entrer les gosses >> >> >> Kim >> > > Speaking of which, my son who is now 10, but was 8 when I wrote my > book really got into it. I think he enjoyed the hitchhiker's reference > a lot, but also got into the multiple universes and the concept of > quantum immortality. But then he's also into Dr Who. WHO isn't? The female sidekicks get sillier and sillier though The multiverse idea has really informed the script-writing for the last few series, eh > Interesting - > maths is not his passion, although he does alright at it (I explained > the proof of Pythagorus's theorem to him a couple of years ago and he > really got it, and he also got the point about sqrt 2 not being > rational. Surpisingly, the irrationality of root 2 was discussed in > one of the sci fi books he was reading at the time) - he is more your > sort Kim. He's into ballet, just took part in the School Spectacular > last week. This kid could be something very special Rusty!! mathematics and dance - crikey!!! What a beautiful mind he has already. Don't send him to Cranbrook - I no longer work there anyway truly average teaching in most subjects - take my word for it > > > Maybe I'll ask him for a translation for the rest of us :) Yes - tell him to keep it nice and simple for me!! > He's not a > bad writer by the way - he's done a couple of short story pieces, > mostly fantasy genre. Hmm - make sure he finds out about Lateral Thinking and Edward de Bono as soon as possible If kids get into "possibility thinking" at around his age, it becomes a habit of mind. He's a creative for sure regards, Kim > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 02 Dec 2008, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > ... >> - technical footnote to be seen by technically inclined >> reader - >> (*) I think that not so much people here realize that the Universal >> Machine and the Universal Dovetailing are things very specific and >> non >> trivial. You can see an explicit Universal Dovetailer described in >> the >> language LISP by clicking on GEN et DU for a pdf here >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html >> Or better, thanks to the crazily formidable work of H. Putnam, M. >> Davis, J. Robinson, Y, Matiyasevitch, and with the help of J. Jones: >> here is a purely equational presentation of a universal machine in >> the >> integers: >> >> There are 31 unknowns ranging on the non negative integers (= 0 >> included): >> A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, >> Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and there are two parameters: Nu >> and X. >> >> The solution of the following system of diophantine equations define, >> taking together, one view, very precise here, of the mathematical >> object that I am talking about. I think the Mandelbrot set is >> another, >> one, and of course a dovetailer in Lisp, another one. Robinson >> Arithmetic gives yet another short one, expressible in first order >> logic with the symbol 0,S, +, *, and very few axioms, and it is the >> one needed to begin the interview of a lobian machine (which can >> "known" they are universal). Without allowing any other symbols than >> "=" and an implicit "E" quantifier, we can get a purely equational >> definition of such universal system: for those who remember the W_i, >> we have that X is in W_Nu (a universal relation) iff there exists >> numbers A, B, C, ... such that >> >> >> Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y >> >> ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 >> >> Qu = B^(5^60) >> >> La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 >> >> Th + 2Z = B^5 >> >> L = U + TTh >> >> E = Y + MTh >> >> N = Q^16 >> >> R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + >> LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) >> + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) >> >> P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 >> >> (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 >> >> 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 >> >> K = R + 1 + HP - H >> >> A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 >> >> C = 2R + 1 Ph >> >> D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga >> >> D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 >> >> F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 >> >> (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 >> >> This is an explicit "theory of everything" acceptable for a >> computationalist. Assuming QM correct, Schroedinger equation (and the >> phenomenological quantum collapse) have to be derived from that, by >> those who believes in comp, or those who want to test comp. >> Such equations determine a "consciousness flux", and matter emerges >> in >> a precise way from observational invariance. >> No need, to understand this (at this stage). It can help to have >> images later to understand the difference between a computation, >> and a >> description of a computation, and how computations can emerge from >> number relation, and why this is non trivial. And things like that. > > I don't remember the W_i, but without doing the math I can accept > that for a > given value of Nu=j the above equations pick out some values of X > which allow > them to be satisfied by integer values of A...Ph, and you express > this as X has > property W_j. But what does it mean to say W_Nu is a "universal > relation"? Has > any explicit solution to this set of equations been found? W_i is the ith recursively enumerable set (having fixed some universal system). It is the domain of the ith partial recursive function F_i. All computation can be reduce in a problem of the sort J belongs to W_i. For example, you can find a value of Nu so that positive X belongs to W_Nu if and only if X is a prime number. Indeed the set of prime numbers is recursively enumerable. The diophantine equation above is a universal (in the sense of Turing, or in the sense of Church thesis ...) diophantine equation. This has solved negatively Hilbert 10th problem: is there an algorithm for solving diophantine equation?. Such an algorithm cannot exist because it would solve the halting problem, by the relation above. Note that if the variable range over the real numbers, such algorithm does exist (Sturm Liouville, Tarski). This shows that Diophantine equation on the reals are really much simpler than on the natural numbers or the integers. The real are an oversimplification of the natural! I guess this can help to understand why I do not think a rock can implement a complex computation. The intuition I guess comes here from the fact that even a point moving on a line is running over all descriptions of all computation (given that all infinite decimals strings can be associated to reals). This is true, but again a description of a computation is not
Re: Lost and not lost?
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... > - technical footnote to be seen by technically inclined > reader - > (*) I think that not so much people here realize that the Universal > Machine and the Universal Dovetailing are things very specific and non > trivial. You can see an explicit Universal Dovetailer described in the > language LISP by clicking on GEN et DU for a pdf here > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html > Or better, thanks to the crazily formidable work of H. Putnam, M. > Davis, J. Robinson, Y, Matiyasevitch, and with the help of J. Jones: > here is a purely equational presentation of a universal machine in the > integers: > > There are 31 unknowns ranging on the non negative integers (= 0 > included): > A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, > Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and there are two parameters: Nu and X. > > The solution of the following system of diophantine equations define, > taking together, one view, very precise here, of the mathematical > object that I am talking about. I think the Mandelbrot set is another, > one, and of course a dovetailer in Lisp, another one. Robinson > Arithmetic gives yet another short one, expressible in first order > logic with the symbol 0,S, +, *, and very few axioms, and it is the > one needed to begin the interview of a lobian machine (which can > "known" they are universal). Without allowing any other symbols than > "=" and an implicit "E" quantifier, we can get a purely equational > definition of such universal system: for those who remember the W_i, > we have that X is in W_Nu (a universal relation) iff there exists > numbers A, B, C, ... such that > > > Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y > > ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 > > Qu = B^(5^60) > > La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 > > Th + 2Z = B^5 > > L = U + TTh > > E = Y + MTh > > N = Q^16 > > R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + > LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) > + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) > > P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 > > (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 > > 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 > > K = R + 1 + HP - H > > A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 > > C = 2R + 1 Ph > > D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga > > D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 > > F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 > > (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 > > This is an explicit "theory of everything" acceptable for a > computationalist. Assuming QM correct, Schroedinger equation (and the > phenomenological quantum collapse) have to be derived from that, by > those who believes in comp, or those who want to test comp. > Such equations determine a "consciousness flux", and matter emerges in > a precise way from observational invariance. > No need, to understand this (at this stage). It can help to have > images later to understand the difference between a computation, and a > description of a computation, and how computations can emerge from > number relation, and why this is non trivial. And things like that. I don't remember the W_i, but without doing the math I can accept that for a given value of Nu=j the above equations pick out some values of X which allow them to be satisfied by integer values of A...Ph, and you express this as X has property W_j. But what does it mean to say W_Nu is a "universal relation"? Has any explicit solution to this set of equations been found? Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Hi Ronald, Thanks for your crude questioning which gives opportunity for crude nuances on the fundamentals. On 01 Dec 2008, at 19:54, ronaldheld wrote: > > This is going to be crude, but if I understand what Bruno( and others) > are saying, there is no Physics or physical universe. I would say that there is still physics, and some physical universe(s). But assuming comp (and the correctness of the reasoning ...) there should be no *primitive* physical universe. The physical universe would be an emerging pattern which would arise eventually from addition and multiplication of integers, or equivalent. > There is a (are) > large computer program(s) running, One "program" is enough. It is the Universal (Turing) machine, or better its "splotched version", that is a program which generates and executes all what a universal machine can do: this is the universal dovetailer. But it exists naturally in arithmetic(*). > some segment of which exhibits > consciousness? Does that crudely imply that everything I sense could > be considered a dream or illusion from the majority viewpoint? What you sense is what is real, but yes, "observable reality" is a shared dream, not among humans, but a vastly more general class of entities (the universal machines, mainly). It is a bit like in Matrix, or SIMULACRON III of Daniel Galouye, of like in the game "Second Life". Such reality obeys (computational) laws, is stable, is sharable, and we have good reason to bet it possesses a manifestly long and deep history (in sense which can been made precise in computer science). So it is hard to call it an illusion, but, ok, it can be viewed as a kind of shared dream by numbers. Bruno - technical footnote to be seen by technically inclined reader - (*) I think that not so much people here realize that the Universal Machine and the Universal Dovetailing are things very specific and non trivial. You can see an explicit Universal Dovetailer described in the language LISP by clicking on GEN et DU for a pdf here http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html Or better, thanks to the crazily formidable work of H. Putnam, M. Davis, J. Robinson, Y, Matiyasevitch, and with the help of J. Jones: here is a purely equational presentation of a universal machine in the integers: There are 31 unknowns ranging on the non negative integers (= 0 included): A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and there are two parameters: Nu and X. The solution of the following system of diophantine equations define, taking together, one view, very precise here, of the mathematical object that I am talking about. I think the Mandelbrot set is another, one, and of course a dovetailer in Lisp, another one. Robinson Arithmetic gives yet another short one, expressible in first order logic with the symbol 0,S, +, *, and very few axioms, and it is the one needed to begin the interview of a lobian machine (which can "known" they are universal). Without allowing any other symbols than "=" and an implicit "E" quantifier, we can get a purely equational definition of such universal system: for those who remember the W_i, we have that X is in W_Nu (a universal relation) iff there exists numbers A, B, C, ... such that Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 K = R + 1 + HP - H A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 C = 2R + 1 Ph D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 This is an explicit "theory of everything" acceptable for a computationalist. Assuming QM correct, Schroedinger equation (and the phenomenological quantum collapse) have to be derived from that, by those who believes in comp, or those who want to test comp. Such equations determine a "consciousness flux", and matter emerges in a precise way from observational invariance. No need, to understand this (at this stage). It can help to have images later to understand the difference between a computation, and a description of a computation, and how computations can emerge from number relation, and why this is non trivial. And things like that. > > On Dec 1, 12:58 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Kim, >> >> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: >> >>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - >>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no >>> substratum of primitive physical materiality? >> >>> If you can explain this da
Re: Lost and not lost?
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:16:27AM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: > > Genial. Faites-entrer les gosses > > > Kim > Speaking of which, my son who is now 10, but was 8 when I wrote my book really got into it. I think he enjoyed the hitchhiker's reference a lot, but also got into the multiple universes and the concept of quantum immortality. But then he's also into Dr Who. Interesting - maths is not his passion, although he does alright at it (I explained the proof of Pythagorus's theorem to him a couple of years ago and he really got it, and he also got the point about sqrt 2 not being rational. Surpisingly, the irrationality of root 2 was discussed in one of the sci fi books he was reading at the time) - he is more your sort Kim. He's into ballet, just took part in the School Spectacular last week. Maybe I'll ask him for a translation for the rest of us :) He's not a bad writer by the way - he's done a couple of short story pieces, mostly fantasy genre. Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > > On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > > >> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - >> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no >> substratum of primitive physical materiality? >> >> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te >> serais infiniment reconnaisant > > > > To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho or > bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding. OK - accepted; I get this from mathematicians and physicists all the time - and I have quite a few as friends. Nevertheless, if there was one human on the planet who could do it, or at the very best make a heroic attempt at it, I reckon YOU'RE THE ONE! Court jesters like me cannot understand mathematics, but we understand the 'realities' described by mathematics through a kind of sixth sense. We are also very good judges of character. Tu peux te sauver, mais tu ne peux pas m'eschapper!!! > > What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it. I LOVE the Mandelbrot set. I intuitively feel that reality is fractal. I do not know how I 'know' this. Please explain to me how I can know something without really knowing something > > > Also, I don't want to bore the list too much, I don't think all these 'brains the size of a planet' are being bored by a different way of looking at the same data for once. Hopefully they welcome it. > and there are already > many posts, so I will go extremely slowly. Yes, there are many monks hunched over their manuscripts in cloisters racking their brains by candle-light, trying to see in the data what they have long ago decided is already there. > > > You may be disappointed. That nobody can explain reality without using mathematics? But reality already IS - I don't see algebra floating around inside my living room!! Maybe the universe is most ACCURATELY described in the (devil's) details using the numbers but what about SIMPLIFYING it all for once? Surely a FIVE YEAR OLD can sit at this table and appreciate some of this stuff? Maybe a five year old can actually PUT something on the table to be considered because the brains-the-size-of-a-planet have forgotten that simplicity is a much more effective force for good than complexity. There is much FOGWEED growing on this list. Maybe reality is too simple to understand - as opposed to too complex. Let's get into a bit of jardinage!!! > In general mystic-open people like the > conclusion, Well - I'm not into mystery, that's for sure. I don't trust people who perpetuate mysteries. They are covering something up!!! I still expect the conclusion to follow from the reasoning, but I happen to believe that once you have cogitated on the mathematics, the output CAN be described in plain English (or French) Why should it be that anybody devoid of a PhD in higher mathematics and logic and computer science should be locked out of this discussion? As I said to Russell recently, "I worship at the feet of anybody who can understand this (mathematical) stuff" BUT I happen to believe (in my humble foolishness) that you can still communicate these (really quite) momentous ideas in a way that the 99.999% of humanity who don't inhabit universities for most of their lives can understand > but dislike the hypotheses and the methodology > (reasoning). If I could bloodywell understand it I might start to like it! Ain't my problem. It's YOURS I didn't ask to be born with a desire to understand the fabric of reality. It afflicts me like a DISEASE > The rationalists like the hypotheses and the reasoning, > but few appreciate the conclusion. That's because everybody only wants to see his own ideas confirmed by the reasoning. As Colin Hales says, scientists predict everything except a scientist. Even scientists want to be loved and appreciated, I guess > > > Are you really serious? As serious as any fool ever gets, I suppose. I imagine the attempt will be fun. New advances in neuroplasticity suggest that as we age, we should attempt to do the SAME things differently, because that way the neurons stay healthy. Some older people haven't learnt a new skill in 50 years. These are the ones who are merely confirming constantly their own conclusions under the guise of "doing science" > I could send a post per month, taking > everything at zero. That's fine. This is perhaps your BIGGEST challenge dear Bruno. You need to take it slowly and ENJOY the challenge my dear > > > Have you an intuition that consciousness is not material? Of course! If we take every score of Beethoven's 3rd symphony and burn them - if we trash every orchestral recording ever made of it - if we get every conductor and player who could remember parts of it or all of it and ERASE
Re: Lost and not lost?
This is going to be crude, but if I understand what Bruno( and others) are saying, there is no Physics or physical universe. There is a (are) large computer program(s) running, some segment of which exhibits consciousness? Does that crudely imply that everything I sense could be considered a dream or illusion from the majority viewpoint? Ronald On Dec 1, 12:58 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Kim, > > On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > > > How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - > > that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no > > substratum of primitive physical materiality? > > > If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te > > serais infiniment reconnaisant > > To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho or > bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding. > What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it. > > Also, I don't want to bore the list too much, and there are already > many posts, so I will go extremely slowly. > > You may be disappointed. In general mystic-open people like the > conclusion, but dislike the hypotheses and the methodology > (reasoning). The rationalists like the hypotheses and the reasoning, > but few appreciate the conclusion. > > Are you really serious? I could send a post per month, taking > everything at zero. > > Have you an intuition that consciousness is not material? > > In case you were not serious, it is ok also. But I like to share, and > others could benefit. Who knows, you could be the one finding the > fatal flaw! > > Best, > > Brunohttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > La vérité sort de la bouche des débutants. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Hi Kim, On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - > that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no > substratum of primitive physical materiality? > > If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te > serais infiniment reconnaisant To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho or bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding. What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it. Also, I don't want to bore the list too much, and there are already many posts, so I will go extremely slowly. You may be disappointed. In general mystic-open people like the conclusion, but dislike the hypotheses and the methodology (reasoning). The rationalists like the hypotheses and the reasoning, but few appreciate the conclusion. Are you really serious? I could send a post per month, taking everything at zero. Have you an intuition that consciousness is not material? In case you were not serious, it is ok also. But I like to share, and others could benefit. Who knows, you could be the one finding the fatal flaw! Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ La vérité sort de la bouche des débutants. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Hey, Kim Jones wrote: > I think this idea is so momentous that I actually wish to compose a > piece of music - possibly a symphony - which seeks to represent this > idea in music. That would be cool! > Et pourquoi pas? Most of the great composers attempted to represent > the TRANSCENDENTAL in music. Yes. In Bach (for instance "The Art of Fugue") I can hear it most clearly :-) Concerning Bruno: >I believe you, more than any human whose > mind I have frotté (grazed? Rubbed against?) has a representation of > ultimate things. I would like to second this opinion. I think Bruno is onto something deep :-) And certainly he has thought more about this than most (all?) people I know. Cheers, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Thank you all for an interesting thread. Bruno, you wrote: "I believe in free will, but I would prefer to say simply just "will". Free-will is a bit of an oxymoron" Wouldn't it be more correct to say that (assuming comp) you DON'T believe in free will, then? If everything (that the physical laws of the universe / programme allow) happens anyway, then free will (in the traditional sense) is an illusion, I would say. > I present an (older) argument that if we take the hypothesis that "we" > are (turing) emulable, then we can doubt that there is a "physical > level" at all. > Put in another way, the appearance of a physical level could be a > higher-order cognitive phenomenon, not specifically human, but > "universal machinian", if I can say. Physical laws could emerge from > some gluing property of machine's possible histories. In fine, the > laws of physics would come from statistical relation on numbers > relations. I'm glad you bring this up, because it really puzzles me. How can physical conceps like constants and energy, etc, be (or emerge from) pure mathematics? In the usual definitions of mathematics there are NO physical concepts. If your answer is that "the appearance of a physical level could be [just] a higher-order cognitive phenomenon" then mathematical structures is all that exist. In that case we will have to re-define the meaning of mathematics a lot, I guess, including a description of HOW mathematics produces a "cognitive phenomenon"? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Hi Ronald, On 29 Nov 2008, at 13:45, ronaldheld wrote: > > Bruno: > My background is in Physics and Astrophysics, with interests in GR > and Cosmology. > I suppose I need some definitions of terms as well as whether those > definitions are used by all of the posters. > I have no idea what consciousness is or why the Universe/Multiverse > should care. I have no idea what the Universe is, but I have a pretty intuition why Consciousness should care. > > Finally for now, I vaguely see how Tegmark's mathematical structures > can represent the mathematical represenations of Physics, but not at > the physical level. I present an (older) argument that if we take the hypothesis that "we" are (turing) emulable, then we can doubt that there is a "physical level" at all. Put in another way, the appearance of a physical level could be a higher-order cognitive phenomenon, not specifically human, but "universal machinian", if I can say. Physical laws could emerge from some gluing property of machine's possible histories. In fine, the laws of physics would come from statistical relation on numbers relations. On this list many people agrees that computation and relative probabilities play some role. Some other insist on states with some absolute probabilities or universal prior (cf Hal Finney). I think Tegmark and Schmidhuber obliterates a bit too much the mind- body question. I am already happy when I can help people to understand that the mind-body problem is a difficult but serious problem and that, by assuming hypotheses of the type of comp, we can try reasoning and been led to startling and very counterintuitive (for an Aristotelian) conception of "reality", and we can even do math. Don't hesitate to ask, perhaps more specific, questions. But if *you* don't care on consciousness or mind, I'm afraid you could be bored quickly. The recent posts try to single out the falsity (or the difficulties) of the identity thesis( linking "consciousness" and "physical state of a brain") when computationalism is assumed. You can find the main argument with references here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Best, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Bruno: My background is in Physics and Astrophysics, with interests in GR and Cosmology. I suppose I need some definitions of terms as well as whether those definitions are used by all of the posters. I have no idea what consciousness is or why the Universe/Multiverse should care. Finally for now, I vaguely see how Tegmark's mathematical structures can represent the mathematical represenations of Physics, but not at the physical level. Ronald On Nov 28, 2:41 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Kim, > > On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28/11/2008, at 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> I have just finished the explanation of an argument > >> (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that > >> I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there > >> is > >> some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have > >> emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof, > >> the > >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume > >> mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or > >> better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively: > >> machine's > >> computer science > > > Dear Bruno > > > for years now I have been trying to grasp this idea. I am an intuitive > > - a composer, an aesthete. The only thing that makes sense to my > > intuition is the beautiful. > > That makes sense. > > > I believe that there is religious > > knowledge, scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge AND artistgic > > (ie aesthetical knowledge.) You MUST try to make this idea accesible > > to somebody like me. I believe you can do it. I have enormous faith in > > your powers of expositiion. I believe I am very close to understanding > > it - grokking it - feeling it dans mes couilles si tu me pige mon pote > > Gosh, well, thanks. > > > > > I think this idea is so momentous that I actually wish to compose a > > piece of music - possibly a symphony - which seeks to represent this > > idea in music. > > My computer (my "universal machine") did interpret some of your music > recently. > > > > > Et pourquoi pas? Most of the great composers attempted to represent > > the TRANSCENDENTAL in music. I believe you, more than any human whose > > mind I have frotté (grazed? Rubbed against?) has a representation of > > ultimate things. The mind of the MUSICAL CREATIVE LOGICIAN desires to > > know this. Pense Bach - Beethoven, even Boulez (who will never be > > popular.) But they had to have a leading idea - une idee fixe, sit tu > > veux - qui les amenait a une representation interieure des choses dite > > fondementale, voire primitives > > > How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - > > that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no > > substratum of primitive physical materiality? > > Hmmm yeah, perhaps one day you could think about *you* proving me > there is such a substratum ... > > Keep in mind also, that, perhaps, you are NOT a machine ... > > Now, ok, if you want I can try to explain this, to a "layman". UDA has > been created for the layman, not for reason of compassion but because > it is good preparation for making it comprehensible by *any* universal > machine. But then they found this before us, and I am, with you the > humble learner, really. > > It is true that now that MGA has been done, a good recap on UDA could > be used > > > > > If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te > > serais infiniment reconnaisant > > Je vais essayer. I will make a try. Be patient. First lesson probably > Sunday :) > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Hi Kim, On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 28/11/2008, at 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I have just finished the explanation of an argument >> (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that >> I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there >> is >> some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have >> emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof, >> the >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume >> mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or >> better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively: >> machine's >> computer science > > > Dear Bruno > > for years now I have been trying to grasp this idea. I am an intuitive > - a composer, an aesthete. The only thing that makes sense to my > intuition is the beautiful. That makes sense. > I believe that there is religious > knowledge, scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge AND artistgic > (ie aesthetical knowledge.) You MUST try to make this idea accesible > to somebody like me. I believe you can do it. I have enormous faith in > your powers of expositiion. I believe I am very close to understanding > it - grokking it - feeling it dans mes couilles si tu me pige mon pote Gosh, well, thanks. > > > I think this idea is so momentous that I actually wish to compose a > piece of music - possibly a symphony - which seeks to represent this > idea in music. My computer (my "universal machine") did interpret some of your music recently. > > > Et pourquoi pas? Most of the great composers attempted to represent > the TRANSCENDENTAL in music. I believe you, more than any human whose > mind I have frotté (grazed? Rubbed against?) has a representation of > ultimate things. The mind of the MUSICAL CREATIVE LOGICIAN desires to > know this. Pense Bach - Beethoven, even Boulez (who will never be > popular.) But they had to have a leading idea - une idee fixe, sit tu > veux - qui les amenait a une representation interieure des choses dite > fondementale, voire primitives > > > How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - > that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no > substratum of primitive physical materiality? Hmmm yeah, perhaps one day you could think about *you* proving me there is such a substratum ... Keep in mind also, that, perhaps, you are NOT a machine ... Now, ok, if you want I can try to explain this, to a "layman". UDA has been created for the layman, not for reason of compassion but because it is good preparation for making it comprehensible by *any* universal machine. But then they found this before us, and I am, with you the humble learner, really. It is true that now that MGA has been done, a good recap on UDA could be used > > > If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te > serais infiniment reconnaisant Je vais essayer. I will make a try. Be patient. First lesson probably Sunday :) 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
On 28/11/2008, at 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I have just finished the explanation of an argument > (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that > I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there is > some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have > emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof, the > Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume > mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or > better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively: machine's > computer science Dear Bruno for years now I have been trying to grasp this idea. I am an intuitive - a composer, an aesthete. The only thing that makes sense to my intuition is the beautiful. I believe that there is religious knowledge, scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge AND artistgic (ie aesthetical knowledge.) You MUST try to make this idea accesible to somebody like me. I believe you can do it. I have enormous faith in your powers of expositiion. I believe I am very close to understanding it - grokking it - feeling it dans mes couilles si tu me pige mon pote I think this idea is so momentous that I actually wish to compose a piece of music - possibly a symphony - which seeks to represent this idea in music. Et pourquoi pas? Most of the great composers attempted to represent the TRANSCENDENTAL in music. I believe you, more than any human whose mind I have frotté (grazed? Rubbed against?) has a representation of ultimate things. The mind of the MUSICAL CREATIVE LOGICIAN desires to know this. Pense Bach - Beethoven, even Boulez (who will never be popular.) But they had to have a leading idea - une idee fixe, sit tu veux - qui les amenait a une representation interieure des choses dite fondementale, voire primitives How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no substratum of primitive physical materiality? If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te serais infiniment reconnaisant amities, Kim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Lost and not lost?
Hi Ronald, On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:07, Ronald Held wrote: > > I joined this list due to Tegmark's site, and got help on my > multiverse talk. Nice. > > I have (tried) to read other threads and do not understand most of > them. Some of which may be due to shared implicit knowledge. Which threads? I think it is normal to get lost. You are a bit unlucky to arrive now, I have just finished the explanation of an argument (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there is some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof, the Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively: machine's computer science. You can find many papers on that subject in my url, and feel free to ask any question. This anticipated and refuted somehow Tegmark and Schmidhuber's approach of some fundamental question. If you are interested I can say more. I have no idea of your background. My work is not so well known, apparently (probably because I have published in french a long time ago). You can see it as a correction of Penrose's Godelian argument, or as a generalisation of Everett's explanation of the appearance, in the memory of the average observers, of the wave collapse in QM. Indeed, if Everett is correct, what I argue for can be used to explain that we have to derive the wave itself from pure arithmetic + the mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science. But there are many different departure possible. perhaps you have your own. You can also may be consult Russell Standish's book on Nothing as an introduction to the subject (it is free online). > Some of > which seems like philosophy and not proofs or calculations I can > understand.not even certain what to ask first, so I will wait to see > what explanations I may received and ask additional questions. Fee free to ask any question. You can perhaps catch up by reading the recent posts MGA 1, MGA 2 and MGA 3. The argument doesn't need the understanding of the whole UDA. And your opinion is welcome now that the argument is still fresh in the mind of the list readers. It seems also that some logicians, or people not adverse to logic have join the list, and if I am asked to explain AUDA, the Arithmetical version of UDA, I could accept or give references. AUDA is an abstract form of the UDA translated in arithmetic. It is not needed to add rigor to the UDA, but only to show a precise path for making the reversal physics/computer-science more constructive, and actually give a precise way for *how* to derive physics from computer science. Other people defends or introduce related ideas, and all turn around the "everything exists" idea, or some other plenitude assumptions. Bruno Marchal 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
