subject:"Re\: My book \"I Am\" published on amazon"

> On 28 May 2019, at 23:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/28/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 May 2019, at 08:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

 On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
 On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift >>> > wrote:

 > It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" 
 > problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know 
 > what dark matter and dark energy are.

 The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question 
 in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer 
 to either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are 
 easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is 
 much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form 
 an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been 
 solved.

 For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous 
 that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter 
 in the universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it 
 can be proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a 
 negative pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what 
 would allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been 
 answered? I have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.

  John K Clark

 My main point is we don't know what gravity is either. Witness all the 
 physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen 
 other options for what gravity is.

 We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and 
 phenomenal gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is 
 still a hard problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of 
 gravity. And no "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be 
 "solved". That idea is a form of theology. Science just comes up with 
 theories that might be useful in some way.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the 
>>> solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology.
>> 
>> That is simply wrong. Physics predicts very well, but only by its 
>> speculation of some yet unknown non computationalist theory of mind.
> 
> Which casts doubt on the computationalist theory of mind.

Yes, of course.

But doubting is not a reason to abandon a theory. GR throws doubt on QM. QM 
throws doubt on GR, for example.

> 
>> 
>> If you don’t believe this, you have to explain me how you related the 3p 
>> prediction with the 1p confirmation, and this will require some God singling 
>> out a computation from all computations. 
> 
> The same way I related the 1p action to the 3p set up of the experiment.

But that des not work with the computationalist theory of mind, as I have 
explained. 

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> The situation is very similar with the reaction of the wave packet. It would 
>> makes sense only with a criteria telling us where QM get wrong in between 
>> the observer and the observed. Wigner and von Neuman suggest that it is at 
>> the level of consciousness, which is at least coherent with the incompatibly 
>> between Mechanism and physicalism. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15f028cc-9a50-cf72-0445-a61bae556c23%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4F48A120-FCF7-4581-AB7B-E4E5C59648C9%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 28 May 2019, at 23:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/28/2019 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27 May 2019, at 02:33, John Clark >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>>   
>>> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because 
>>> >> nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used 
>>> >> to determine if its been successfully answered.
>>> 
>>> > So you don’t understand it.
>>> 
>>> Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing
>> 
>> 
>> There are operational version of the problem, like what would be a criteria 
>> to allow a Japanese sexual automaton to get her human clients to be sent in 
>> jail for having lack some respect toward IT/HER/HIM.
> 
> What's the criteria to allow a Japanese prostitute to get her human clients 
> to be sent in jail for having lack some respect toward IT/HER/HIM?

The usual one. Being raped (absence of consent) or being under the attempt of 
murder, or not paying her/him, etc. 




> 
>> 
>> You have agreed that two identical digital brain, physically realised in 
>> different place, doing the same computations, would support one 
>> consciousness, but you keep believing that physics is enough to predict our 
>> first person experience. Such prediction assumes that we know which 
>> computation support us, and that it is unique. This might not been the case, 
>> even with physicalism,
> 
> Which?... that we don't know which computation supports us or that it is not 
> unique?  The former is almost certainly the case.

We know that the computation cannot be unique, as each computations is done 
with an extreme reducnance in (sigma_1) arithmetic.

In (sigma_1) arithmetic, or if you prefer in the Universal dovetailing, if 
there were a unique computation, you need to explain why the same computation 
done with a different clock, or with some dummy instructions in between each 
step (of the other computation), makes that other Brent Meeker into a zombie.

That would already violate step 2 in the UDA.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> and is provably not the case with mechanism, as arithmetic execute all 
>> “Boltzman Brain”, in fact just all computations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> if it's been successfully answered or not and after communicating with you 
>>> for years I don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove 
>>> with mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the 
>>> issue had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things?
>> 
>> 
>> On the contrary, I prove, in the frame of my working hypothesis, that this 
>> is impossible.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I doubt it, I think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness 
>>> but X is not consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you 
>>> don't know what exactly you want to know.
>>>  
>>> >It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek 
>>> >philosophy.
>>> 
>>> The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on 
>>> your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one 
>>> nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of 
>>> studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has 
>>> work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and 
>>> the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for 
>>> Greek philosophy.. 
>>> 
>>> > The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
>>> 
>>> I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon the 
>>> idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery by 
>>> not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
>>> 
>>> John K Clark
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dM4Y3eMgYfrXjXze0_f_WPbnK2DC0wWZvBcxDibT2yg%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 28 May 2019, at 18:56, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:16 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > You have agreed that two identical digital brain, physically realised in 
> > different place, doing the same computations, would support one 
> > consciousness,
> 
> Yes.
>  
> > but you keep believing that physics is enough to predict our first person 
> > experience.
> 
> Physics can never make a good prediction if you don't make clear exactly what 
> it is that you want predicted,

My reasoning does not depends on what is predicted. But if you want, we can fix 
the thing, and take the experience of dropping a pen, and computing the chance 
it falls on he ground.

My point is that you will have to consider all possible implementations of you 
in the physical universe, and “worst” in the arithmetical reality, to get the 
correct explanation (in the frame of Mechanism of course).




> and neither science nor anything else can predict what the referent is to the 
> personal pronouns in your increasingly convoluted thought experiments. 
> 
> >>If I could prove with mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness 
> >>would you say the issue had been put to bed and its time to move on to 
> >>other things?
> 
> 
> > On the contrary, I prove, in the frame of my working hypothesis, that this 
> > is impossible.
> 
> Then why don't you stop wasting your time by trying to do something that 
> can't be done and try to solve a problem that is not impossible, like 
> figuring out how to organize matter in such a way that it behaves 
> intelligently?

It needs only to incarnate a universal machine with enough induction axioms. So 
that is already done.

I guess much more work is needed to get a entity as stupid as humans, capable 
of burning alive its fellows, etc.

Bruno 




> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
>  
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2g0cDc5_hjgJ-bGrzygeL0_qUjbYtg2xMv8F%2BZH16ofA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EA0782E7-A0BB-49A1-9148-E5224B1DAB01%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 28 May 2019, at 13:44, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:38 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 28 May 2019, at 08:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the 
>> solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology.
> 
> That is simply wrong. Physics predicts very well, but only by its speculation 
> of some yet unknown non computationalist theory of mind.
> 
> If you don’t believe this, you have to explain me how you related the 3p 
> prediction with the 1p confirmation, and this will require some God singling 
> out a computation from all computations.
> 
> That is actually quite easy. Physics picks out the correct computation 
> because there is only one physical state, one computation, underlying each 
> particular mind.

For all x there is a y such that phi_y = phi_x (intensional equality). All 
computations are done in infinitely many exemplars if you believe that 2+2=4, 
and if you know the definition of computation.







> All the other computations/physical states that you think lie beneath our 
> level of substitution are just manifestations of other minds -- other people. 
> One physical brain gives one computation gives one person. Problem solved!

No. It is just an illustration that you did need to invoke your “physical god” 
to select the computation.

No problem with this move, as you already claim that you disbelieve in 
Mechanism. Your “solution” simply does not work in the frame of my working 
hypothesis.

Bruno 




> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQdCn0UsGbOdYNYWFGw0eWOjK-DqtF347S_GoLifis%3DPw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AFA48666-C4C1-44BB-A209-FA7622929961%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 28 May 2019, at 09:56, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 1:00:30 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>> > It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" problem, 
>> > as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know what dark 
>> > matter and dark energy are.
>> 
>> The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question in 
>> physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer to 
>> either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are 
>> easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is 
>> much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form 
>> an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been 
>> solved.
>> 
>> For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that 
>> its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the 
>> universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be 
>> proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative 
>> pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would 
>> allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I 
>> have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
>> 
>>  John K Clark
>> 
>> 
>> My main point is we don't know what gravity is either. Witness all the 
>> physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen 
>> other options for what gravity is.
>> 
>> We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and phenomenal 
>> gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is still a hard 
>> problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of gravity. And no 
>> "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be "solved". That idea is 
>> a form of theology. Science just comes up with theories that might be useful 
>> in some way.
> 
> On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the solutions 
> provided by every other disciplines...like theology.

Which one?

The invocation of the existence of physical universe to explain why we see a 
physical universe simply does no more work when we assume the mechanist 
explanation of the cognition.

If your criteria os instrumentalist, then science works very well, but abandon 
the fundamental explanation to the charlatan. Better to come back to science, 
and to stop separating science and religion. Science is properly included in 
religion. A religion which fear science is a religion based on lies. Only liars 
fear the possible truth and the search for it.

I guess you mean “theology” in the sense of those who decide to subtract it 
from reason and science, and yes, that idea does not work, for obvious reason.

Bruno 




> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> I was thinking yesterday about what any theory/model of consciousness would 
> be good for.
> 
> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Prentner 
> 
> etc.
> 
> There is a scientific subject called Psychology, and professional Ph.D. 
> clinical psychologists that treat people. Maybe a theory of consciousness can 
> be useful there. Or in sociology, political science.
> 
> There is of course the engineering prospect of making conscious robots. But 
> Daniel Dennett apparently says now that effort should be stopped.
> 
> ...
> So what we are creating are not—should not be—conscious, humanoid agents but 
> an entirely new sort of entity, rather like oracles, with no conscience, no 
> fear of death, no distracting loves and hates, no personality (but all sorts 
> of foibles and quirks that would no doubt be identified as the “personality” 
> of the system): boxes of truths (if we’re lucky) almost certainly 
> contaminated with a scattering of falsehoods.
> 
> It will be hard enough learning to live with them without distracting 
> ourselves with fantasies about the Singularity in which these AIs will 
> enslave us, literally. The human use of human beings will soon be 
> changed—once again—forever, but we can take the tiller and steer between some 
> of the hazards if we take responsibility for our trajectory.
> 
> https://www.wired.com/story/will-ai-achieve-consciousness-wrong-question/ 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/28/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 May 2019, at 08:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift
> wrote:

/> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a
"hard" problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be
"easy". We don't know what dark matter and dark energy are./

The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important
question in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We
don't know the answer to either one but as least the question is
clear so in that sense they are easy. But nobody even knows what
the "hard" question of consciousness is much less have a answer,
by that I mean nobody even knows the general form an answer
would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been
solved.

For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so
numerous that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all
normal baryonic matter in the universe then the Dark Matter
question would be answered; and if it can be proven that
Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative
pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But
what would allow you to say the hard question of consciousness
has been answered? I have no idea because the question has not
been stated clearly.

John K Clark

My main point is we don't know what *gravity* is either. Witness all
the physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental)
and a dozen other options for /what gravity is/.

We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and
phenomenal gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but
there is still a hard problem of gravity. There is no accepted final
theory of gravity. And no "problem" of science (including gravity)
will ever be "solved". That idea is a form of theology. Science just
comes up with theories that might be useful in some way.

On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the
solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology.

That is simply wrong. Physics predicts very well, but only by its
speculation of some yet unknown non computationalist theory of mind.

Which casts doubt on the computationalist theory of mind.

If you don’t believe this, you have to explain me how you related the
3p prediction with the 1p confirmation, and this will require some God
singling out a computation from all computations.

The same way I related the 1p action to the 3p set up of the experiment.

Brent

The situation is very similar with the reaction of the wave packet. It
would makes sense only with a criteria telling us where QM get wrong
in between the observer and the observed. Wigner and von Neuman
suggest that it is at the level of consciousness, which is at least
coherent with the incompatibly between Mechanism and physicalism.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15f028cc-9a50-cf72-0445-a61bae556c23%40verizon.net
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4F48A120-FCF7-4581-AB7B-E4E5C59648C9%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29bc4be0-e251-e129-a0ca-397b8fe821f9%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/28/2019 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 May 2019, at 02:33, John Clark > wrote:

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:

>> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of
consciousness" because nobody knows exactly what the question
is or what criteria is to be used to determine if its been
successfully answered.

> /So you don’t understand it.//
/

Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing

There are operational version of the problem, like what would be a
criteria to allow a Japanese sexual automaton to get her human clients
to be sent in jail for having lack some respect toward IT/HER/HIM.

What's the criteria to allow a Japanese prostitute to get her human
clients to be sent in jail for having lack some respect toward IT/HER/HIM?

You have agreed that two identical digital brain, physically realised
in different place, doing the same computations, would support one
consciousness, but you keep believing that physics is enough to
predict our first person experience. Such prediction assumes that we
know which computation support us, and that it is unique. This might
not been the case, even with physicalism,

Which?... that we don't know which computation supports us or that it is
not unique? The former is almost certainly the case.

Brent

and is provably not the case with mechanism, as arithmetic execute all
“Boltzman Brain”, in fact just all computations.

if it's been successfully answered or not and after communicating
with you for years I don't think even you what would satisfy you. If
I could prove with mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness
would you say the issue had been put to bed and its time to move on
to other things?

On the contrary, I prove, in the frame of my working hypothesis, that
this is impossible.

Bruno

I doubt it, I think you'd say(correctly) that X may cause
consciousness but X is not consciousness. And the tail chasing would
continuebecause you don't know what exactly you want to know.

/>It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest
in greek philosophy./

The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit
admission on your part that the field you're so interested in has not
advanced one nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer
would dream of studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of
it helping him in has work because astronomy has advanced light years
in the last 2500 years; and the same is also true for medicine and
mathematics and physics, but not for Greek philosophy..

> The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.

I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that
abandon the idea of God but believe they have made a great
philosophical discovery by not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dM4Y3eMgYfrXjXze0_f_WPbnK2DC0wWZvBcxDibT2yg%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/392717A5-046F-4658-A635-473114545A82%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6ec323f-63b9-4d82-c7b2-70beb65542dd%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

John McCarthy, inventor of LISP, said the same thing twenty years ago.
He warned against inadvertently creating conscious beings while
developing service robots.

Brent

On 5/28/2019 12:56 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
There is of course the engineering prospect of making conscious
robots. But Daniel Dennett apparently says now that effort should be
stopped.

...
So what we are creating are not—s*hould not be*—conscious, humanoid
agents but an entirely new sort of entity, rather like oracles, with
no conscience, no fear of death, no distracting loves and hates, no
personality (but all sorts of foibles and quirks that would no doubt
be identified as the “personality” of the system): boxes of truths (if
we’re lucky) almost certainly contaminated with a scattering of
falsehoods.

It will be hard enough learning to live with them without distracting
ourselves with fantasies about the Singularity in which these AIs will
enslave us, literally. The human use of human beings will soon be
changed—once again—forever, but we can take the tiller and steer
between some of the hazards if we take responsibility for our trajectory.

https://www.wired.com/story/will-ai-achieve-consciousness-wrong-question/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/db9574b1-cd61-d5cd-2d1e-c3accc444afd%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread John Clark

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> You have agreed that two identical digital brain, physically realised in
> different place, doing the same computations, would support one
> consciousness,*
>

Yes.

> > *but you keep believing that physics is enough to predict our first
> person experience.*
>

Physics can never make a good prediction if you don't make clear exactly
what it is that you want predicted, and neither science nor anything else
can predict what the referent is to the personal pronouns in your
increasingly convoluted thought experiments.

>>If I could prove with mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness
> would you say the issue had been put to bed and its time to move on to
> other things?
>
>
> *> On the contrary, I prove, in the frame of my working hypothesis, that
> this is impossible.*
>

Then why don't you stop wasting your time by trying to do something that
can't be done and try to solve a problem that is not impossible, like
figuring out how to organize matter in such a way that it behaves
intelligently?

John K Clark

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2g0cDc5_hjgJ-bGrzygeL0_qUjbYtg2xMv8F%2BZH16ofA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:38 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 28 May 2019, at 08:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the
> solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology.
>
>
> That is simply wrong. Physics predicts very well, but only by its
> speculation of some yet unknown non computationalist theory of mind.
>
> If you don’t believe this, you have to explain me how you related the 3p
> prediction with the 1p confirmation, and this will require some God
> singling out a computation from all computations.
>

That is actually quite easy. Physics picks out the correct computation
because there is only one physical state, one computation, underlying each
particular mind. All the other computations/physical states that you think
lie beneath our level of substitution are just manifestations of other
minds -- other people. One physical brain gives one computation gives one
person. Problem solved!

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQdCn0UsGbOdYNYWFGw0eWOjK-DqtF347S_GoLifis%3DPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 28 May 2019, at 08:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote:
>> 
>> > It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" problem, 
>> > as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know what dark 
>> > matter and dark energy are.
>> 
>> The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question in 
>> physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer to 
>> either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are 
>> easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is 
>> much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form 
>> an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been 
>> solved.
>> 
>> For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that 
>> its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the 
>> universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be 
>> proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative 
>> pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would 
>> allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I 
>> have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
>> 
>>  John K Clark
>> 
>> 
>> My main point is we don't know what gravity is either. Witness all the 
>> physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen 
>> other options for what gravity is.
>> 
>> We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and phenomenal 
>> gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is still a hard 
>> problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of gravity. And no 
>> "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be "solved". That idea is 
>> a form of theology. Science just comes up with theories that might be useful 
>> in some way.
> 
> On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the solutions 
> provided by every other disciplines...like theology.

That is simply wrong. Physics predicts very well, but only by its speculation 
of some yet unknown non computationalist theory of mind.

If you don’t believe this, you have to explain me how you related the 3p 
prediction with the 1p confirmation, and this will require some God singling 
out a computation from all computations. 

The situation is very similar with the reaction of the wave packet. It would 
makes sense only with a criteria telling us where QM get wrong in between the 
observer and the observed. Wigner and von Neuman suggest that it is at the 
level of consciousness, which is at least coherent with the incompatibly 
between Mechanism and physicalism. 

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15f028cc-9a50-cf72-0445-a61bae556c23%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4F48A120-FCF7-4581-AB7B-E4E5C59648C9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 27 May 2019, at 22:27, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>  
> >> if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that its mass 
> >> added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the universe 
> >> then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be proven 
> >> that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative 
> >> pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would 
> >> allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I 
> >> have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
> 
> > My main point is we don't know what gravity is either.
> 
> But we know the general form an answer would take. We already have a theory 
> of gravity that successfully explains all observations involving it, if it 
> didn't produce ridiculous results at the singularity at the center of a Black 
> Hole as General Relativity does we could say the answer to the question "What 
> is gravity?" has been as successfully answered as its ever going to be. But 
> what general form must the answer to the hard problem of consciousness take?  
> 
> To put it another way, it will always be hard to find an answer if nobody 
> knows what the question is.


You confuse “explanation” and “prediction”. Physics works very well to predict 
local happening, but fail to explain why such prediction can last and persist. 

As a tool for prediction, none doubt that physics is successful, but it uses an 
identity link between 3p and 1p which is inconsistent with Mechanism, and so 
materialist have still the obligation of giving a non mechanist theory of mind, 
if they want physicalism to be the correct metaphysics/theology.

Bruno



> 
>  John K Clark
> 
>
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3u-oOpK-pjVJAQQAOsHQoKKmpuDGsyCb_Ey7Dnj5t68A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FE59462C-EB8E-405E-8099-51E92C42DC19%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 27 May 2019, at 20:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote:
> Consciousness is the stage within which all these phenomena are observed. It 
> is a qualitatively different thing, unlike any other thing I can think of.
> 
> It's like asking the difference between "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", 
> "Clockwork Orange" and a cinema screen.
> 
> Telmo.
> 
> 
> If you are a real materialist (Strawson's term), then consciousness is a 
> property of  (at least) the matter that fills up our skulls. Consciousness is 
> 100% material.

That has no meaning for me. Could you send me 5g of consciousness, tell me how 
it reacts, etc. 

Without mechanism, I can logically conceived that perhaps consciousness has a 
material aspect, but, even without mechanism, that remains extremely 
speculative. With Mechanism, it is provably wrong. With mechanism, even matter 
is not material.

With mechanism, we get immaterialism, but not idealism, unless you put the 
numbers into the category of (God’s) mental imagination. But that is not 
necessary, as the axiom of arithmetic used will remain unchanged.



> There is nothing like the brain in complexity around, but to say that the 
> brain is in part immaterial is like theology.
> 
> What you are presenting  of course is dualism, matter on one hand, immaterial 
> consciousness on the other. It's just another form of antimaterialism.

Mechanism is incompatible with Materialism, but the arithmetical reality seems 
to explain all aspect of consciousness, including the presenting illusion of a 
material reality, shown unavoidable with mechanism. With mechanism, the laws of 
physics are the same for all universal numbers.

Bruno 



> 
> - Immaterialism , a philosophy 
> branching from George Berkeley of which his idealism is a type
> - Dualism (philosophy of mind) 
> , a philosophy 
> which includes the claim that mental phenomena are, in some respects, 
> non-physical
> - Gnosticism , a general class of 
> religious movements which hold that human beings have divine souls trapped in 
> a material world
> - Idealism , which holds that the 
> ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas
> - Maya (illusion) , a concept 
> in various Indian religions regarding the dualism of the Universe
> - Platonic realism , which 
> holds that certain universals have a real existence, in the sense of 
> philosophical realism
> - Supernaturalism 
> - Transcendentalism , a 
> group of ideas involving an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the 
> physical and empirical realms
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b178e747-989a-48a1-af16-9a3439bb6ad0%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95E6B6E7-8FC3-43FD-83D8-3332171D0E93%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 27 May 2019, at 09:57, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>   
> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because 
> >> nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used 
> >> to determine if its been successfully answered.
> 
> > So you don’t understand it.
> 
> Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing if it's been 
> successfully answered or not and after communicating with you for years I 
> don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove with 
> mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the issue 
> had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things? I doubt it, I 
> think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness but X is not 
> consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you don't know 
> what exactly you want to know.
>  
> >It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek 
> >philosophy.
> 
> The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on 
> your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one 
> nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of 
> studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has 
> work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and 
> the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for 
> Greek philosophy.. 
> 
> > The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
> 
> I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon the 
> idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery by not 
> abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" problem, as 
> if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know what dark matter 
> and dark energy are. There are a hundred papers on arXiv with different 
> definitions and theories on those two "problems". We don't know if those 
> terms are well defined - we only observe phenomena we associate with them. 
> Physicists - at least in the articles they write for both scientific and 
> science-for-the-general-reader publications - don't agree on what space, 
> time, spacetime, or gravity are (e.g. loop quantum gravity vs. scale 
> relativity vs. string theory vs. ...). There are unsolved problems in 
> chemistry*. The medley of "quantum gravity" theories - attempts to meld GR 
> and QM - make gravity** a "hard" problem. In the scheme of things, 
> consciousness may be a "hard" problems, but science is full of such things.
> 
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
> ** e.g. Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in 
> modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with 
> macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and 
> not a fundamental interaction. 

The hard problem is due to our wanting to associate a first person 
phenomenology to a 3p reality. With mechanism this leads to only one 
solution/problem: to derive the physics from the phenomenology of the self. And 
this works, up to now, leading to an “easy” problem of matter, which is of 
course technically rather difficult, but the propositional part of physics has 
already been derived. 

The idea that the problem is hard, is that it cannot been explained in the same 
way we can explain macroscopic temperature from the kinetics of atoms, or life 
from chemistry. In those case we reduce 3p-problems into 3p-problems. The only 
proposed solution to the 1p-3p relationship problem have been proposed by 
Plato, and dismiss by Aristotle and its followers. But reality strikes back, as 
today, most serious people understand that the Aristotle solution is simply not 
working.

Bruno





> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b1641605-ff99-461c-b5cd-201e43a119a4%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 27 May 2019, at 02:33, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>   
> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because 
> >> nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used 
> >> to determine if its been successfully answered.
> 
> > So you don’t understand it.
> 
> Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing


There are operational version of the problem, like what would be a criteria to 
allow a Japanese sexual automaton to get her human clients to be sent in jail 
for having lack some respect toward IT/HER/HIM.

You have agreed that two identical digital brain, physically realised in 
different place, doing the same computations, would support one consciousness, 
but you keep believing that physics is enough to predict our first person 
experience. Such prediction assumes that we know which computation support us, 
and that it is unique. This might not been the case, even with physicalism, and 
is provably not the case with mechanism, as arithmetic execute all “Boltzman 
Brain”, in fact just all computations.




> if it's been successfully answered or not and after communicating with you 
> for years I don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove 
> with mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the 
> issue had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things?


On the contrary, I prove, in the frame of my working hypothesis, that this is 
impossible.


Bruno



> I doubt it, I think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness but 
> X is not consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you don't 
> know what exactly you want to know.
>  
> >It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek 
> >philosophy.
> 
> The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on 
> your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one 
> nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of 
> studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has 
> work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and 
> the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for 
> Greek philosophy.. 
> 
> > The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
> 
> I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon the 
> idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery by not 
> abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dM4Y3eMgYfrXjXze0_f_WPbnK2DC0wWZvBcxDibT2yg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/392717A5-046F-4658-A635-473114545A82%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 27 May 2019, at 22:39, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Also, another question would be: What is your view on time ? Do computations 
> happen in time or does time emerges out of atemporal computations ?

Subjective time emerges from atemporal computations. Physical time appears as 
physicality itself emerges as a subjective first person plural phenomenon, but, 
a bit like in Loop-Gravity, the physical time is not a thing per se, but comes 
from the indexical nature of the relative self in arithmetic.

Note that arithmetic implements directly a digital elementary of time, by the 
order on the natural number, which is eminently an arithmetic notion (x < y === 
Ez(x+z = y)). That is the time used by the notion of computational step in the 
arithmetical computations. Of course that is an atemporal notion of time, and 
it is enough (apparently) to explain many different notion of phenomenological 
time. In fact the logic of the first person ([]p & p, S4Grz) is typically a 
logic of time, or better, of subjective duration, rather close to Brouwer and 
Bergson.

Bruno

> 
> On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Ask any question for more explanation,
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/68dfa23b-aef2-4047-b230-f330a09b8137%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4BB86C7B-DC5E-412A-9A0E-7356A80FB93E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 27 May 2019, at 22:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm not necessarily smarter as I am honest. When I look at the phenomenology 
> of consciousness and I see certain things, I cannot then lie to myself that I 
> haven't seen those things. If I had countless telepathies and precognitions 
> especially in relations to loved ones, I cannot then lie that they were only 
> "coincidences". Maybe you simply never loved anyone. This is the best 
> explanation that I can find. Otherwise, you would have known that the 
> experiences that you would have had in relation to the loved ones were not 
> merely "coincidences". You cannot lie to yourself when you have a dream with 
> your parents in hospital and then next morning find out that they were 
> hospitalized, that it was only just a "coincidence". 
> 
> So all I can say to you is: go out-there and love people. Stop playing the 
> "serious materialist dude" card. It's pitiful.

I sent you my comments by telepathy.

Bruno




> 
> On Sunday, 26 May 2019 18:56:17 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
> You are smarter than all of us, Cosmin! 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3dc6e276-fa40-4a78-9b46-92d012deed96%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/391BAB18-FDFF-4F04-B13E-E6EBEEB43F7E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 27 May 2019, at 22:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Are you aware of Roger Penrose writings about non-computable phenomena ?

Yes. But non computable phenomena is exactly what all machines are confronted 
with, and indeed, Mechanism enforced both consciousness and matter to be not 
computable.

To add special sort of non computability, like a wave-reduction in quantum 
mechanics, is like adding magic marmelade to dismiss a theory which already 
explains why non-computability is made obligatory with the Mechanist hypothesis.

Then Penrose first argument is just non valid. He corrected it in his second 
best seller, but he did not take into account his own correction in the 
philosophical consequences.

But Penrose general idea, like the “theory” defended by Philip Thrift, is 
consistent with mechanism: if matter exists ontologically, then indeed we 
cannot be supported by Digital Machine. 

Bruno

> 
> On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> computation
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ae3fbf5-0296-4a75-9938-72d0925c307d%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D0646A0B-4340-424A-8B6D-2A03128A7DEF%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread Philip Thrift

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 1:00:30 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> *> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" 
>>> problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know 
>>> what dark matter and dark energy are.*
>>>
>>
>> The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question 
>> in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer 
>> to either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are 
>> easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is 
>> much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form 
>> an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been 
>> solved. 
>>
>> For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous 
>> that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter 
>> in the universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it 
>> can be proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a 
>> negative pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what 
>> would allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been 
>> answered? I have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
>
> My main point is we don't know what *gravity* is either. Witness all the 
> physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen 
> other options for *what gravity is*.
>
> We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and 
> phenomenal gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is 
> still a hard problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of 
> gravity. And no "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be 
> "solved". That idea is a form of theology. Science just comes up with 
> theories that might be useful in some way.
>
>
> On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the 
> solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology.
>
> Brent
>

I was thinking yesterday about what any theory/model of consciousness would 
be good for.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Prentner
etc.

There is a scientific subject called Psychology, and professional Ph.D. 
clinical psychologists that treat people. Maybe a theory of consciousness 
can be useful there. Or in sociology, political science.

There is of course the engineering prospect of making conscious robots. But 
Daniel Dennett apparently says now that effort should be stopped.

...
So what we are creating are not—s*hould not be*—conscious, humanoid agents 
but an entirely new sort of entity, rather like oracles, with no 
conscience, no fear of death, no distracting loves and hates, no 
personality (but all sorts of foibles and quirks that would no doubt be 
identified as the “personality” of the system): boxes of truths (if we’re 
lucky) almost certainly contaminated with a scattering of falsehoods.

It will be hard enough learning to live with them without distracting 
ourselves with fantasies about the Singularity in which these AIs will 
enslave us, literally. The human use of human beings will soon be 
changed—once again—forever, but we can take the tiller and steer between 
some of the hazards if we take responsibility for our trajectory.

https://www.wired.com/story/will-ai-achieve-consciousness-wrong-question/

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21c0c753-27b8-475b-94e0-0535f196fd5a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-28 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:

/> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a
"hard" problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be
"easy". We don't know what dark matter and dark energy are./

The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important
question in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We
don't know the answer to either one but as least the question is
clear so in that sense they are easy. But nobody even knows what
the "hard" question of consciousness is much less have a answer,
by that I mean nobody even knows the general form an answer would
take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been solved.

For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so
numerous that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal
baryonic matter in the universe then the Dark Matter question
would be answered; and if it can be proven that Einstein's
Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative pressure then
the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would allow
you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I
have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.

John K Clark

My main point is we don't know what *gravity* is either. Witness all
the physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and
a dozen other options for /what gravity is/.

On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the
solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15f028cc-9a50-cf72-0445-a61bae556c23%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/27/2019 12:57 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:

>> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of
consciousness" because nobody knows exactly what the
question is or what criteria is to be used to determine if
its been successfully answered.

> /So you don’t understand it.//
/

Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing if
it's been successfully answered or not and after communicating
with you for years I don't think even you what would satisfy you.
If I could prove with mathematical certitude that X caused
consciousness would you say the issue had been put to bed and its
time to move on to other things? I doubt it, I think you'd
say(correctly) that X may cause consciousness but X is not
consciousness. And the tail chasing would continuebecause you
don't know what exactly you want to know.

/>It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of
interest in greek philosophy./

The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit
admission on your part that the field you're so interested in has
not advanced one nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern
astronomer would dream of studying Greek astronomical theories
with the hope of it helping him in has work because astronomy has
advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and the same is also
true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for Greek
philosophy..

> The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.

I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that
abandon the idea of God but believe they have made a great
philosophical discovery by not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.

John K Clark

It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard"
problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't
know what dark matter and dark energy are. There are a hundred papers
on arXiv with different definitions and theories on those two
"problems". We don't know if those terms are well defined - we only
observe phenomena we associate with them. Physicists - at least in the
articles they write for both scientific and
science-for-the-general-reader publications - don't agree on what
space, time, spacetime, or gravity are (e.g. loop quantum gravity vs.
scale relativity vs. string theory vs. ...). There are unsolved
problems in chemistry*. The medley of "quantum gravity" theories -
attempts to meld GR and QM - make gravity** a "hard" problem. In the
scheme of things, consciousness may be a "hard" problems, but science
is full of such things.

I think the difference is that people can't imagine or articulate what a
solution to the "hard problem of consciousness" would even look like.
When I say that it will be desolved when we can engineer AI beings to
behave at a human level of intelligence and can specify attributies of
their personality, people say, "Oh, but that's not solving the hard
problem. How will you know how they feel inside?" I say you'll ask them.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2500ba37-77dc-2384-6b24-e3e687c49ae4%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 3:28:11 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>  
>
>> >> if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that its 
>>> mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the 
>>> universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be 
>>> proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative 
>>> pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would 
>>> allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I 
>>> have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
>>>
>>
>> *> My main point is we don't know what gravity is either.*
>>
>
> But we know the general form an answer would take. We already have a 
> theory of gravity that successfully explains all observations involving it, 
> if it didn't produce ridiculous results at the singularity at the center of 
> a Black Hole as General Relativity does we could say the answer to the 
> question "What is gravity?" has been as successfully answered as its ever 
> going to be. But what general form must the answer to the hard problem of 
> consciousness take?  
>
> To put it another way, it will always be hard to find an answer if nobody 
> knows what the question is.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
Science is about making theories to model phenomena, whether that phenomena 
is gravity or consciousness. For the latter, there is like what I posted 
earlier:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jXnhI88FISU/oP58r9LfAQAJ 

I don't think it is about questions. That is philosophy.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/246e6120-b85a-44f6-b0b9-6c517c3aea03%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Also, another question would be: What is your view on time ? Do 
computations happen in time or does time emerges out of atemporal 
computations ?

On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Ask any question for more explanation,
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/68dfa23b-aef2-4047-b230-f330a09b8137%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

I'm not necessarily smarter as I am honest. When I look at the 
phenomenology of consciousness and I see certain things, I cannot then lie 
to myself that I haven't seen those things. If I had countless telepathies 
and precognitions especially in relations to loved ones, I cannot then lie 
that they were only "coincidences". Maybe you simply never loved anyone. 
This is the best explanation that I can find. Otherwise, you would have 
known that the experiences that you would have had in relation to the loved 
ones were not merely "coincidences". You cannot lie to yourself when you 
have a dream with your parents in hospital and then next morning find out 
that they were hospitalized, that it was only just a "coincidence". 

So all I can say to you is: go out-there and love people. Stop playing the 
"serious materialist dude" card. It's pitiful.

On Sunday, 26 May 2019 18:56:17 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> You are smarter than all of us, Cosmin! 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3dc6e276-fa40-4a78-9b46-92d012deed96%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread John Clark

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> >> if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous that its
>> mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in the
>> universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can be
>> proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a negative
>> pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what would
>> allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been answered? I
>> have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
>>
>
> *> My main point is we don't know what gravity is either.*
>

But we know the general form an answer would take. We already have a theory
of gravity that successfully explains all observations involving it, if it
didn't produce ridiculous results at the singularity at the center of a
Black Hole as General Relativity does we could say the answer to the
question "What is gravity?" has been as successfully answered as its ever
going to be. But what general form must the answer to the hard problem of
consciousness take?

To put it another way, it will always be hard to find an answer if nobody
knows what the question is.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3u-oOpK-pjVJAQQAOsHQoKKmpuDGsyCb_Ey7Dnj5t68A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Are you aware of Roger Penrose writings about non-computable phenomena ?

On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> computation
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ae3fbf5-0296-4a75-9938-72d0925c307d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote:
>
> Consciousness is the stage within which all these phenomena are observed. 
> It is a qualitatively different thing, unlike any other thing I can think 
> of.
>
> It's like asking the difference between "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", 
> "Clockwork Orange" and a cinema screen.
>
> Telmo.
>
>
If you are a real materialist (Strawson's term), then consciousness is a 
property of  (at least) the matter that fills up our skulls. Consciousness 
is 100% material. There is nothing like the brain in complexity around, but 
to say that the brain is in part immaterial is like theology.

What you are presenting  of course is dualism, matter on one hand, 
immaterial consciousness on the other. It's just another form of 
antimaterialism.


   - - Immaterialism , a 
   philosophy branching from George Berkeley of which his idealism is a type
   - - Dualism (philosophy of mind) 
   , a 
   philosophy which includes the claim that mental phenomena are, in some 
   respects, non-physical
   - - Gnosticism , a general 
   class of religious movements which hold that human beings have divine souls 
   trapped in a material world
   - - Idealism , which holds that 
   the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas
   - - Maya (illusion) , a 
   concept in various Indian religions regarding the dualism of the Universe
   - - Platonic realism , 
   which holds that certain universals have a *real* existence, in the 
   sense of philosophical realism
   - - Supernaturalism 
   - - Transcendentalism , 
   a group of ideas involving an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the 
   physical and empirical realms


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b178e747-989a-48a1-af16-9a3439bb6ad0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" 
>> problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know 
>> what dark matter and dark energy are.*
>>
>
> The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question 
> in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer 
> to either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are 
> easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is 
> much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form 
> an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been 
> solved. 
>
> For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous 
> that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter 
> in the universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it 
> can be proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a 
> negative pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what 
> would allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been 
> answered? I have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.
>
>  John K Clark
>


My main point is we don't know what *gravity* is either. Witness all the 
physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen 
other options for *what gravity is*.

We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and 
phenomenal gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is 
still a hard problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of 
gravity. And no "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be 
"solved". That idea is a form of theology. Science just comes up with 
theories that might be useful in some way.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/be292b2d-2627-4b83-8106-dd467b6fef69%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread John Clark

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard"
> problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know
> what dark matter and dark energy are.*
>

The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question
in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer
to either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are
easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is
much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form
an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been
solved.

For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous
that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter in
the universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it can
be proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a
negative pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what
would allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been
answered? I have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv30EW7H-CfvN-nEs6LqdL2FBGJXvMrdPimw2MrbFsyA3w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread Telmo Menezes



On Mon, May 27, 2019, at 09:57, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
 >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because 
 >> nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be 
 >> used to determine if its been successfully answered.
>>> 
>>> > *So you don’t understand it.***
>> 
>> Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing if it's been 
>> successfully answered or not and after communicating with you for years I 
>> don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove with 
>> mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the issue 
>> had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things? I doubt it, I 
>> think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness but X is not 
>> consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you don't know 
>> what exactly you want to know.
>> 
>>> *>It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek 
>>> philosophy.*
>> 
>> The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on 
>> your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one 
>> nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of 
>> studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has 
>> work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and 
>> the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for 
>> Greek philosophy.. 
>> 
>>> > The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
>> 
>> I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon the 
>> idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery by 
>> not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
>> 
>> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" problem, as 
> if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know what dark matter 
> and dark energy are. There are a hundred papers on arXiv with different 
> definitions and theories on those two "problems". We don't know if those 
> terms are well defined - we only observe phenomena we associate with them. 
> Physicists - at least in the articles they write for both scientific and 
> science-for-the-general-reader publications - don't agree on what space, 
> time, spacetime, or gravity are (e.g. loop quantum gravity vs. scale 
> relativity vs. string theory vs. ...). There are unsolved problems in 
> chemistry*. The medley of "quantum gravity" theories - attempts to meld GR 
> and QM - make gravity** a "hard" problem. In the scheme of things, 
> consciousness may be a "hard" problems, but science is full of such things.

What makes the phenomenon of consciousness unlike all the others you list is 
this: dark matter, dark energy, time, space and gravity are all phenomena that 
we observe within our first-person view of reality, and that we can 
inter-subjectively agree on. Consciousness is the stage within which all these 
phenomena are observed. It is a qualitatively different thing, unlike any other 
thing I can think of.

It's like asking the difference between "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Clockwork 
Orange" and a cinema screen.

Telmo.

> 
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
> ** e.g. *Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in 
> modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with 
> macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and 
> not a fundamental interaction. *
> 
> @philipthrift
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b1641605-ff99-461c-b5cd-201e43a119a4%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58ce38af-3d1e-482f-a2db-23a2d0e84361%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 25 May 2019, at 12:12, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I told you: The definition of a number is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. If you 
> start seeing number as being alive, then you have a problem. 

Yes, number are not alive, nor machine, nor brains, no piece of matter, nor 
anything finite, actually.

But number can be involved in relation making computations definable in 
arithmetic. In fact, very elementary arithmetic has been shown to be Turing 
universal. So, whatever you can do with a computer (a digital universal 
machine, implemented in a physical reality) can be done, and *is* done, in the 
arithmetical reality. You can see the arithmetical reality as a block 
mindscape: it emulates all the dreams (including the waking experiences), which 
explains why we have to recover the physical reality appearance from the 
statistics on all computations (which are purely arithmetic object, even when 
implemented in a continuum or in a physical reality).

The first proof that Arithmetic is Turing Universal is already in Gödel’s paper 
of 1931. Gödel did not understood this, because he remained skeptical that his 
definition of computation was general enough to define all computations 
possible, but eventually he will be convinced on this when reading the 1936 
paper by Kleene.

The fact that the notion of computation is purely arithmetical is typically 
“very well known” by mathematical logicians, but basically not understood by 
non-logicians. Yet, it is not difficult to prove, although it is rather 
tiedous, as it is like programming with a very low level assembly language.

Such facts are prove in all details in good textbook, like Eliot Mendelson’s 
introduction to Mathematical Logic, or the classical 1952 book by Kleene 
“Introduction to Metamathematics”. But see also the Dover book “computability 
and unsolvablity” by Martin Davis, which is a cheap dover book, with an 
appendix proving Matiyasevitch proof that not only computation is arithmetic, 
but it is even polynomial (with diopahnatine polynomial were we search the 
integer or natural number solution, and the coefficient of the polynomials are 
integers).

Ask any question for more explanation,

Bruno

> 
> On Thursday, 23 May 2019 19:39:42 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Cosmin, ask question, it is simpler that way. You can read the papers also.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c8cb7d4c-d7fb-4551-bb97-90fd9734d983%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/70D9D0E4-0F6D-4C86-B624-578DABDD8885%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>   
>
>> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" 
>>> because nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be 
>>> used to determine if its been successfully answered.
>>
>>
>> > *So you don’t understand it.*
>>
>
> Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing if it's 
> been successfully answered or not and after communicating with you for 
> years I don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove with 
> mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the issue 
> had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things? I doubt it, 
> I think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness but X is not 
> consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you don't know 
> what exactly you want to know.
>  
>
>> * >It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek 
>> philosophy.*
>>
>
> The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on 
> your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one 
> nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of 
> studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has 
> work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and 
> the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for 
> Greek philosophy.. 
>
> > The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
>>
>
> I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon 
> the idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery 
> by not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
>
> John K Clark
>

It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" problem, 
as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know what dark 
matter and dark energy are. There are a hundred papers on arXiv with 
different definitions and theories on those two "problems". We don't know 
if those terms are well defined - we only observe phenomena we associate 
with them. Physicists - at least in the articles they write for both 
scientific and science-for-the-general-reader publications - don't agree on 
what space, time, spacetime, or gravity are (e.g. loop quantum gravity vs. 
scale relativity vs. string theory vs. ...). There are unsolved problems in 
chemistry*. The medley of "quantum gravity" theories - attempts to meld GR 
and QM - make gravity** a "hard" problem. In the scheme of things, 
consciousness may be a "hard" problems, but science is full of such things.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
** e.g. *Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in 
modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with 
macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and 
not a fundamental interaction. *

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b1641605-ff99-461c-b5cd-201e43a119a4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-26 Thread John Clark

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because
>> nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used to
>> determine if its been successfully answered.
>
>
> > *So you don’t understand it.*
>

Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing if it's been
successfully answered or not and after communicating with you for years I
don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove with
mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the issue
had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things? I doubt it, I
think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness but X is not
consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you don't know
what exactly you want to know.

> * >It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek
> philosophy.*
>

The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on
your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one
nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of
studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has
work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and
the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for
Greek philosophy..

> The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
>

I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon the
idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery by
not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dM4Y3eMgYfrXjXze0_f_WPbnK2DC0wWZvBcxDibT2yg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-26 Thread Philip Thrift

It is ironic that Alan Turing himself thought that actual computing in the 
universe included (to a large extent)  non-Turing computing (where "Turing" 
here means what became the standard definition as being carried out by the 
commonly-defined "Turing machine"). That "computing" became synonymous with 
"Turing-machine computing" can't be blamed on Alan Turing.

Alan Turing
HIS WORK AND IMPACT

Edited by
S. BARRY COOPER
University of Leeds, UK
and
JAN VAN LEEUWEN
Utrecht University, The Netherlands

2013

https://oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Alan-Turing.pdf

Aaron Sloman absolves Turing of —
The Mythical Turing Test 

In his 1950 paper, Turing described his famous ‘imitation game’, defining a 
test that he thought machines would pass by the end of the century. It is 
often claimed that Turing was proposing a test for intelligence. I think 
that assumption is mistaken (a) because Turing was far too intelligent to 
propose a test with so many flaws, (b) because his words indicate that he 
thought it would be a silly thing to do, and (c) because there is an 
alternative, much more defensible, reading of his paper as making a 
technological prediction, whose main function was to provide a unifying 
framework for discussing and refuting some common arguments against the 
possibility of intelligent machines.1 I shall try to explain (i) why the 
common interpretation of Turing’s paper is mistaken, (ii) why the idea of a 
test for intelligence in a machine or animal is misguided, and (iii) why a 
different sort of test, not for a specific machine or animal, but for a 
genome or generic class of developing systems, would be of greater 
scientific and philosophical interest. That sort of test was not proposed 
by Turing, and is very different from the many proposed revisions of 
Turing’s test, since it would require many instances of the design allowed 
to develop in a variety of environments. to be tested. That would be an 
experiment in meta-morphogenesis, the topic of my paper in Part IV of this 
volume.

@philipthrift

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 12:19:49 PM UTC-5, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the work of 
> Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's test for human-like 
> intelligent behavior manifestations (of computers, machines) with the 
> halting issue being whether it's possible to discover whether an 
> "intelligent" machine will, at some point, halt or run "forever."
> cheers! Howard Marks
>
> On 5/25/2019 8:12 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> You didn't answer the question (probably the politically correctness 
> indoctrination is keeping you from telling the truth): Did you understand 
> what Bruno is talking about ?
>
> On Saturday, 25 May 2019 13:21:19 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 
>>
>> Obviously, you can't. I'm sorry for you.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51db461d-0363-4e91-85de-6002ae584c4a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-26 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 23 May 2019, at 05:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/22/2019 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2019, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be 
> provable, nor why that is relevant.
 It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.
 
 Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately 
 true and not provable.
>>> Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question.
>> “I am conscious” is the experience, not the 3P description of the brain 
>> which might make that experience manifestable.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> When you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that 
>>> moment.
>> Yes. Normally. Obviously, we can have fever, get mad, but all this are 
>> irrelevant for the logical reasoning.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate telepathically (by 
>>> EM as I recall) visit Earth.  They can "read the minds" of humans but they 
>>> are frustrated in trying to communicate with humans because the humans keep 
>>> opening their mouths and producing vibrations and whenever they do this, 
>>> their "minds" go blank.
>> OK. But that is science-fiction. The immediacy factor is subjective. If the 
>> human say “I am conscious”, its perception of consciousness seems direct. 
>> Some notorious experience by Libet show that a decision we believe being 
>> made consciously is actually already done unconsciously before the decision 
>> is conscious,
> 
> Also the Grey Walter experiments.


Yes. 

We could say that all this is obvious with mechanism. A machine cannot be 
directly aware of the happenings leading to his awareness or its decision. I 
prove this explicitly in my long-texte, and it can be related to “hen kin 
virus” of Hofstadter and Solovay, and some other theorems in mathematical 
logic. A machine cannot define God, but, curiously enough, it can define the 
singleton God. A machine cannot provides the total trace of its computation 
made to output that trace. Indeed, a machine programmed to do that will either 
never stop, or stop only on partial incomplete description of the trace, yet a 
machine can stop on an output which is a program, which when run, will give the 
entire correct trace. 

Now, to conclude like many that this shows that we have no free-will is a 
confusion of level. 
We are not our body, and our history is not our computations. Everything is in 
the abstract true relation, and the phenomenologies entailed by the difference 
between provable and truth (and knowable, observable, …).



> 
>> which is stronger than what I say. The point is the the subject feel that 
>> consciousness is immediate.
> 
> As Dennett has pointed out your brain synchronizes perceptions by 
> compensating for the different delays in being processed and reaching 
> consciousness.  I have noted this myself.  If something unexpected happens 
> like a small explosion this synchronization fails and you hear the explosion 
> before you see it.

If you are close enough … I mean, with the lightening, r atomic bombs, You see 
the explosion quite before the you hear the low frequency thunder of boom. But 
I guess what you say make sense.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> That happens in both the []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p self-reference modes. 
>> The Kripke accessibility relation islets the transitivity in the 
>> communicable part and incommmunicable parts (handled by G and G* 
>> respectively).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd76cadb-c855-ff33-3a61-f89b6be75270%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8AF5C7EF-B665-45D3-B434-5A7E02801B6C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-26 Thread howardmarks

You are smarter than all of us, Cosmin!

On 5/26/2019 6:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
See ? You don't understand anything from what Bruno is saying. You
only spot the word "Turing", you also heard about the "Turing test",
and you shallowly concluded that that is what Bruno is talking about.
No. He is talking about all kinds of weird stuff, like numbers that
are alive.

But of course, people always want to show how smart they are, that's
why they play the "Of course I understand!!!" card. Sorry, this
doesn't work with me. I'm too smart to be tricked by such cheap tricks.

So let's wait for Bruno to tell us how are numbers alive.

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 20:19:49 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the
work of Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's
test for human-like intelligent behavior manifestations (of
computers, machines) with the halting issue being whether it's
possible to discover whether an "intelligent" machine will, at
some point, halt or run "forever."
cheers! Howard Marks

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/451f30ad-a27d-41f2-b949-0bdba970e0ec%40googlegroups.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6f59eaaa-94c2-c505-1f69-d844b885a52a%40doitnow.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-26 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

See ? You don't understand anything from what Bruno is saying. You only 
spot the word "Turing", you also heard about the "Turing test", and you 
shallowly concluded that that is what Bruno is talking about. No. He is 
talking about all kinds of weird stuff, like numbers that are alive.

But of course, people always want to show how smart they are, that's why 
they play the "Of course I understand!!!" card. Sorry, this doesn't work 
with me. I'm too smart to be tricked by such cheap tricks.

So let's wait for Bruno to tell us how are numbers alive.

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 20:19:49 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the work of 
> Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's test for human-like 
> intelligent behavior manifestations (of computers, machines) with the 
> halting issue being whether it's possible to discover whether an 
> "intelligent" machine will, at some point, halt or run "forever."
> cheers! Howard Marks
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/451f30ad-a27d-41f2-b949-0bdba970e0ec%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-25 Thread Telmo Menezes

This mailing list has been going on for decades now. Bruno's ideas have been 
discussed a lot along the years, as well as other's. Unfortunately we do not 
have any central source to get you up to speed, but there are at least two 
books you can take a look at. One is the one that brought me here, a long time 
ago:

https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html

The other is this one:

https://www.amazon.de/Amoebas-Secret-English-Bruno-Marchal-ebook/dp/B00IRLEKPA/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=secret+of+the+amoeba=1558808470=gateway=8-1

You can also ask questions. We might be a bit weird around here, but we are 
mostly serious people with a multitude of opinions and ongoing debates that, in 
some instances, span decades. I found a lot of exciting and though-provoking 
ideas on this list, that I had not considered before.

Cheers,
Telmo.

On Sat, May 25, 2019, at 12:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> Do you understand what Bruno is talking ? Being frank with people is not 
> insulting. I'm sorry that you are indoctrinated to be politically correct, 
> smiling in front of people and talking bad about them from behind. Me, not 
> being indoctrinated, I tell people exactly what is to be told. So, I ask 
> again: Do you understand what Bruno is talking ? 
> 
> On Thursday, 23 May 2019 12:14:43 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing 
>> ? What do you expect to gain being rude ?
>> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3aa68f6e-8d26-4310-89d1-ad4a345bdcba%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aca272d1-8d6d-49cc-a8f6-360984c88e1c%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-25 Thread howardmarks

Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the work 
of Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's test for 
human-like intelligent behavior manifestations (of computers, machines) 
with the halting issue being whether it's possible to discover whether 
an "intelligent" machine will, at some point, halt or run "forever."

cheers! Howard Marks

On 5/25/2019 8:12 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
You didn't answer the question (probably the politically correctness 
indoctrination is keeping you from telling the truth): Did you 
understand what Bruno is talking about ?


On Saturday, 25 May 2019 13:21:19 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Obviously, you can't. I'm sorry for you.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b206653f-d595-4afb-ac45-6c212a258439%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac12a3fc-8c90-0b7e-785a-cfac1bde2048%40doitnow.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-25 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

You didn't answer the question (probably the politically correctness 
indoctrination is keeping you from telling the truth): Did you understand 
what Bruno is talking about ?

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 13:21:19 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Obviously, you can't. I'm sorry for you.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b206653f-d595-4afb-ac45-6c212a258439%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-25 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Obviously, you can't. I'm sorry for you.

Bye

Le sam. 25 mai 2019 à 12:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit :

> Do you understand what Bruno is talking ? Being frank with people is not
> insulting. I'm sorry that you are indoctrinated to be politically correct,
> smiling in front of people and talking bad about them from behind. Me, not
> being indoctrinated, I tell people exactly what is to be told. So, I ask
> again: Do you understand what Bruno is talking ?
>
> On Thursday, 23 May 2019 12:14:43 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're
>> writing ? What do you expect to gain being rude ?
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3aa68f6e-8d26-4310-89d1-ad4a345bdcba%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kApFuCot_Ojp4WAqt8c%2B-RH%2Bfh2iCG2PhO8EYwW_14Z70g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-25 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

I told you: The definition of a number is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. If you 
start seeing number as being alive, then you have a problem. 

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 19:39:42 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Cosmin, ask question, it is simpler that way. You can read the papers also.
>
> Bruno
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c8cb7d4c-d7fb-4551-bb97-90fd9734d983%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-25 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Do you understand what Bruno is talking ? Being frank with people is not 
insulting. I'm sorry that you are indoctrinated to be politically correct, 
smiling in front of people and talking bad about them from behind. Me, not 
being indoctrinated, I tell people exactly what is to be told. So, I ask 
again: Do you understand what Bruno is talking ? 

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 12:14:43 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're 
> writing ? What do you expect to gain being rude ?
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3aa68f6e-8d26-4310-89d1-ad4a345bdcba%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 23 May 2019, at 11:14, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 
> Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing ? 
> What do you expect to gain being rude ?

Yes, it is bit distracting. It is not even clear to whom the insult are 
addressed.

Cosmin, ask question, it is simpler that way. You can read the papers also.

Bruno


> 
> Le jeu. 23 mai 2019 à 10:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> a écrit :
> I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are just 
> too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case, and 
> not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just to 
> impress people.
> 
> On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com 
> <mailto:spudb...@aol.com> wrote:
> Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise to 
> the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor 
> species!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
> 
> 
>> On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One 
>> Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same 
>> thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all 
>> domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?
> 
> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations are 
> enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the weaker 
> Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).
> 
> To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse remains to 
> be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal >
>> To: everything-list >
>> Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
>> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>> 
>> 
>>> On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not 
>>> only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)
>>> 
>>> From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/ 
>>> <http://jdh.hamkins.org/>
>>> 
>>> "Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):
>>> 
>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp- content/uploads/Is-there-more- 
>>> than-one-mathematical- universe.pdf 
>>> <http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/Is-there-more-than-one-mathematical-universe.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The final slides:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Continuum Hypothesis is settled
>>> 
>>> On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
>>> It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.
>>> 
>>> The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
>>> CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
>>> models are connected and how one may reach them from each
>>> other while preserving or omitting certain features.
>>> 
>>> Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
>>> most important essential facts are known.
>>> 
>>> Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
>>> mathematical world or many
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.
>>> 
>>>  Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax (to some extent) 
>>> and semantics!
>> 
>> If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a 
>> reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible 
>> theories on that reality.
>> 
>> It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many mathematical 
>> worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with realism, on the 
>> contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which everybody agree. 
>> The standard arithmetical truth is definable wi

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing
? What do you expect to gain being rude ?

Le jeu. 23 mai 2019 à 10:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit :

> I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are
> just too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case,
> and not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just
> to impress people.
>
> On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise
>> to the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor
>> species!
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
>> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>>
>>
>> On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One
>> Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same
>> thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all
>> domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?
>>
>>
>> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations
>> are enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the
>> weaker Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).
>>
>> To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse
>> remains to be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
>> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not
>> only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)
>>
>> From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/
>>
>> "Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):
>>
>> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp- content/uploads/Is-there-more-
>> than-one-mathematical- universe.pdf
>> <http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/Is-there-more-than-one-mathematical-universe.pdf>
>>
>>
>> The final slides:
>>
>> 
>>
>> *The Continuum Hypothesis is settled*
>>
>> On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
>> It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.
>>
>> The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
>> CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
>> models are connected and how one may reach them from each
>> other while preserving or omitting certain features.
>>
>> Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
>> most important essential facts are known.
>>
>> Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
>> mathematical world or many
>>
>> 
>>
>> Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.
>>
>> * Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax *(to some
>> extent)* and semantics!*
>>
>>
>> If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a
>> reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible
>> theories on that reality.
>>
>> It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many
>> mathematical worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with
>> realism, on the contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which
>> everybody agree. The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of
>> set theory, on which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all
>> models of the theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in
>> analysis. With Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but
>> have became phenomenological.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.
>>
>> For example (as Hamkins shows)

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-23 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are just 
too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case, and 
not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just to 
impress people.

On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise to 
> the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor 
> species!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>
>
> On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One 
> Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same 
> thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all 
> domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?
>
>
> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations 
> are enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the 
> weaker Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).
>
> To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse remains 
> to be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
> Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon
>
>
> On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not 
> only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.
>
>
>
>
> (This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)
>
> From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/
>
> "Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp- content/uploads/Is-there-more- 
> than-one-mathematical- universe.pdf 
> <http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/Is-there-more-than-one-mathematical-universe.pdf>
>
>
> The final slides:
>
> 
>
> *The Continuum Hypothesis is settled*
>
> On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
> It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.
>
> The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
> CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
> models are connected and how one may reach them from each
> other while preserving or omitting certain features.
>
> Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
> most important essential facts are known.
>
> Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
> mathematical world or many
>
> 
>
> Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.
>
> * Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax *(to some extent)* 
> and semantics!*
>
>
> If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a 
> reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible 
> theories on that reality.
>
> It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many 
> mathematical worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with 
> realism, on the contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which 
> everybody agree. The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of 
> set theory, on which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all 
> models of the theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in 
> analysis. With Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but 
> have became phenomenological. 
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.
>
> For example (as Hamkins shows) the CH is true in one dialect (of set 
> theory) and false in another.
>
>
> That was shown by Cohen and Gödel.
>
> Interestingly, ZFC and ZF + CH does not prove more arithmetical 
> propositions than ZF alone. The arithmetical truth is totally independent 
> of the axiom of choice or the continuum hypotheses.
>
> Now, ZF proves much more theorems in arithmetic than PA, which proves much 
> more than RA. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop re

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-22 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/22/2019 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 May 2019, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

3) I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be provable, nor
why that is relevant.

It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.

Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately true
and not provable.

Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question.

“I am conscious” is the experience, not the 3P description of the brain which
might make that experience manifestable.

When you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that moment.

Yes. Normally. Obviously, we can have fever, get mad, but all this are
irrelevant for the logical reasoning.

I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate telepathically (by EM as I recall) visit
Earth. They can "read the minds" of humans but they are frustrated in trying to
communicate with humans because the humans keep opening their mouths and producing vibrations and
whenever they do this, their "minds" go blank.

OK. But that is science-fiction. The immediacy factor is subjective. If the
human say “I am conscious”, its perception of consciousness seems direct. Some
notorious experience by Libet show that a decision we believe being made
consciously is actually already done unconsciously before the decision is
conscious,

Also the Grey Walter experiments.

which is stronger than what I say. The point is the the subject feel that
consciousness is immediate.

As Dennett has pointed out your brain synchronizes perceptions by
compensating for the different delays in being processed and reaching
consciousness. I have noted this myself. If something unexpected
happens like a small explosion this synchronization fails and you hear
the explosion before you see it.

Brent

That happens in both the []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p self-reference modes. The
Kripke accessibility relation islets the transitivity in the communicable part and incommmunicable
parts (handled by G and G* respectively).

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd76cadb-c855-ff33-3a61-f89b6be75270%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 22 May 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Derive here from addition and multiplication the color red.

“Derive” here is ambiguous.

If you mean literally to derive the colour red from addition and 
multiplication, then you ask me something impossible. Yet, what I can show is 
that impossibility is already derivable by the universal (Löbian, rich) machine.

The first thing consists in deriving the existence of the universal machines in 
arithmetic, but that was entirely done in Gödel 1931. He missed the universal 
machine, but the followers will not miss it (and Emil Post saw it 10 years 
before).

Just some details, to give you the idea how that is possible. 

The harder step is deriving first the exponentiation from addition and 
multiplication. Gödel used a famous idea in Number theory, sometimes called the 
Chinese Lemma. It is modular arithmetic, which already alone have a Babbage 
gear wheel universal machine. See Gödel 1931, or any textbook in mathematical 
logic.

Once you have exponentiation, as I have explained recently, you can derive 
faithful (isomorphic) representation of finite sequences of numbers, in term of 
addition and multiplication.

>From this you can imagine that we can represent simple known Turing universal 
>machine, and indeed all this is “well known” in this domain.

Then, to please Brent, and invoking the environment, and using a physical 
computer , I will follow the shorter way to the colour red, by training a 
neural net to recognise colour, and notably the colour red. 

Now the difficult step: the neural net has to be largely re-entrant. It a 
neural in a torus, with still some entry, facing the colored objects. I need 
this to make the neural net Löbian, he trains itself on itself.

All this has been done by the physical computers, which implement a digital 
universal machine, whose existence is a theorem of arithmetic. 

In the theory given by the Löbian machine itself, the qualia red has the 
property to be experientially obvious, but not belonging to the 3p describable 
type.

The experience itself cannot be attached to any of its number theoretical 
implementation, but to all of them. That infinities and the unavoidable 
redundance, including the necessity of long and deep histories, play a role in 
stabilising the histories. For us “red” has many connotations, if only because 
it is the color of blood. Most plausibly the qualia of “red” of the simple 
arithmetical toroidal neural net above is quite dissimilar to our, so I don’t 
claim having capture the human red qualia. For this one, the numbers will be a 
the relative representations of yourself in arithmetic, which exists (an 
infinity) when we assume the digital Mechanist hypothesis.

But even without the mechanist hypothesis, it is a theorem that the Löbian 
machine can understand that they can’t prove to anyone that they are conscious, 
or that they have qualia. 

Above the universal treshold you are confronted to the non provable, the non 
controllable, or insecurity, and a Lobian machine is mainly a universal machine 
who knows that she is universal, and she knows the price, and that price is 
notably that 99,9% of her accessible truth are not communicable, nor 
describable. But then that is why there is art, music and poets. 

Bruno

> 
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:40:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> What about color red ?
> 
> As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is 
> derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to 
> Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) that 
> a weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6abdfb87-7999-4ff5-a246-529f797b77a9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A9899035-325D-4812-8175-FCB971A809D0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 21 May 2019, at 21:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> You just invoke your God again, but the whole point of doing science, 
>> especially theological or metaphysics is to keep personal conviction out of 
>> the research. To use word like “real” is a symptom of 
>> pseudo-science/religion.
> 
> Then stop using arithmetical realism.

“Realism” here is just the belief that RA axioms are true about the “well 
known” structure N. That is not an assumption in metaphysics, but in 
mathematics.

Its formal correspondent is captured by the Excluded Middle Principle. It is 
needed to make sense of the idea that phi_i(j) converges or does not converge.

We can use here a technical weakening to please the intuitionist, (~p v ~~p) 
but it is not necessary to do that, as an intuitionist will never say “yes” to 
a doctor, unless perhaps in last resort, when the choice is between a certain 
death or a possible survival.

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c4d5a64-f02f-bad3-b9cd-fdadf7e7026f%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EA6E865B-3C89-485A-8D52-F26A58FD7207%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 21 May 2019, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be provable, 
>>> nor why that is relevant.
>> 
>> It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.
>> 
>> Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately 
>> true and not provable.
> 
> Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question.

“I am conscious” is the experience, not the 3P description of the brain which 
might make that experience manifestable. 

> When you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that moment. 

Yes. Normally. Obviously, we can have fever, get mad, but all this are 
irrelevant for the logical reasoning.

> I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate telepathically (by 
> EM as I recall) visit Earth.  They can "read the minds" of humans but they 
> are frustrated in trying to communicate with humans because the humans keep 
> opening their mouths and producing vibrations and whenever they do this, 
> their "minds" go blank.

OK. But that is science-fiction. The immediacy factor is subjective. If the 
human say “I am conscious”, its perception of consciousness seems direct. Some 
notorious experience by Libet show that a decision we believe being made 
consciously is actually already done unconsciously before the decision is 
conscious, which is stronger than what I say. The point is the the subject feel 
that consciousness is immediate. 
That happens in both the []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p self-reference modes. The 
Kripke accessibility relation islets the transitivity in the communicable part 
and incommmunicable parts (handled by G and G* respectively).

Bruno 

> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/45F3EC1F-A135-4AF3-9CFE-211403CBCE31%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 21 May 2019, at 20:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Atheism is radical post-529 christianism. Before 529, theology was still 
>> done with the greek method: discussion, theories, experimentation, and 
>> changing the theories/definitions each time a contradiction appears. 
> 
> What theological experiments were performed?

“Theological experiments” is a *very* general notion: to live is one of them, 
to get some mystical experience is the most common, but to observe reality and 
think, and compare through dialog with other falls also on that rubric.

The point is is that they did theology with the scientific attitude: modesty, 
observation and theorisation, with the ability to change mind as often as 
necessary.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0882703-1c0e-e23a-1cb9-c7e551a86aa3%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E33AB588-634C-4BA8-972F-98C432CD0D16%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-22 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Derive here from addition and multiplication the color red.

On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:40:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> What about color red ?
>
>
> As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is 
> derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to 
> Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) 
> that a weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6abdfb87-7999-4ff5-a246-529f797b77a9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-21 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/21/2019 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

You just invoke your God again, but the whole point of doing science, 
especially theological or metaphysics is to keep personal conviction out of the 
research. To use word like “real” is a symptom of pseudo-science/religion.


Then stop using arithmetical/*realism.*/

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c4d5a64-f02f-bad3-b9cd-fdadf7e7026f%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-21 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be 
provable, nor why that is relevant.


It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.

Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both 
immediately true and not provable.


Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question. When 
you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that 
moment.  I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate 
telepathically (by EM as I recall) visit Earth.  They can "read the 
minds" of humans but they are frustrated in trying to communicate with 
humans because the humans keep opening their mouths and producing 
vibrations and whenever they do this, their "minds" go blank.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-21 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 5/21/2019 1:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Atheism is radical post-529 christianism. Before 529, theology was 
still done with the greek method: discussion, theories, 
experimentation, and changing the theories/definitions each time a 
contradiction appears. 


What theological experiments were performed?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0882703-1c0e-e23a-1cb9-c7e551a86aa3%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 21 May 2019, at 13:06, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 20, 2019, at 11:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 May 2019, at 08:56, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch >>> > wrote:
 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:

 Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a simple fact to 
 prove: all computations are realised in  all models of arithmetic.

 But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human mind, and 
 mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream.

 You sound certain.  What is your evidence?

 Jason

 The is no evidence for mathematical realism,
>>> 
>>> There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable 
>>> effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is true? 
>>> No, but then again the same applies to all promising ideas.
>>> 
 and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our 
 experience.
>>> 
>>> Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep having 
>>> all these discussions.
>> 
>> 
>> It seems to me that the mathematics of the first person self-referential 
>> modes of the machine (those with “& p”) does account of our experience. And 
>> up to now, it does account of the “matter appearances”.
>> 
>> The universal machine can be said to know that she has a soul, and that she 
>> knows that her soul is not a machine, nor even anything third person 
>> describable.
>> 
>> Do you agree that consciousness is what is, from the 1p view of the machine:
>> 
>> 1) true
>> 2) immediately knowable and indubitable
>> 3) non provable
>> 4) non definable (but still meta-definable using “mechanism”)
>> +
>> 5) invariant for some digital substitution
> 
> I agree.

Good, so, given the fact that I show that any universal machine discover 
something obeying those quasi-axioms when looking inward, that explains 
consciousness?

> 
>> 
>> Then it is a theorem that the Mechanist Universal machine can prove: 
>> "consciousness is true for me”.
>> 
>> We get a science, extended into a theology, and in particular, we get a 
>> theory of quanta, extended by a theory of qualia, making this theory of 
>> consciousness testable, by testing its quanta part with nature. Thanks to 
>> QM, it fits.
>> 
>> I am aware that you don’t seem convince by this, but I am not sure what it 
>> is that you are missing, or what you think the explanation above is missing.
>> 
> 
> To say that your theory accounts for our experience, you have to make some 
> connection to apples at some point. How do the laws of physics arise when 
> seeing the computations from the inside?

We know this before we do the math. Physics appears through the first person 
statistic on all computations (i.e. sigma_1 sentences). So physics is the logic 
of the bets or prediction available in arithmetic. []p cannot work, despite it 
entails p is true in all consistent extensions, because it is only trivially 
true on the cul-de-sac worlds or extensions. So to get a probability or a 
credibility, we have to add “manually”, so to speak, either the trueness of p, 
or at least its consistency, and, thank to incompleteness we get intuitionist 
logic for the subject, and quantum logic for matter, confirming that the above 
conclusion makes sense.

> I mean specifically, in the same way that Einstein had to show how his theory 
> swallowed Newton’s,

You can’t ask this. The physics extracted from the theory of consciousness is 
not propose to do physics, just to solve the mind-body problem. To use it for 
physics would be like telling to a string theory to do a better pizza using it, 
but that will not happen for obvious reason.

> you also have to swallow the current theories in such a convincing way

But the “simple argument”, without the math, shows that there is no choice, if 
we want to solve the mind -body problem.

> that we can say that you have the TOE

Yes, but not a TOE in the physicists sense of the word. Physics + 
physicalism+mechanism  just fails on *all* predictions, once you understand 
that it relies on an identity thesis which is inconsistent with mechanism.

> . I don't think you have done that so far. I understand your point that QM 
> appears to confirm mechanism, but I am asking for more than that.

Not just QM. The very existence of a physical reality confirms 
computationalism, and refute physicalism + mechanism.

I don’t expect physicist to say “you are right we must predict with 
computationalism”. That will never happen. But today, the TOE provided by the 
universal machine looking inward is, to my knowledge, the only coherent theory 
of consciousness and of matter. No doubt a lot of work remains to be done, even 
an infinity of works, forever.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> What about color red ?

As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is 
derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to 
Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) that a 
weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.

With mechanism, the ontology is very simple, any universal machinery can be 
used. I use the numbers because everyone is familiar with them. I often use 
combinators with more advanced students, as their Turing universality is less 
lengthy to prove. I made a thread on the mathematics of combinators recently.

Bruno

> 
> On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a694fd70-41de-415e-8c72-69c4ad385aa6%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A10218E8-8638-4A29-ABDC-125189BFC185%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-21 Thread Telmo Menezes



On Mon, May 20, 2019, at 11:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 17 May 2019, at 08:56, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett  
 wrote:
> 
>> Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a simple fact to 
>> prove: all computations are realised in all models of arithmetic.
> 
> But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human mind, and 
> mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream.
> 
 
 You sound certain. What is your evidence?
 
 Jason
>>> 
>>> The is no evidence for mathematical realism,
>> 
>> There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable 
>> effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is true? 
>> No, but then again the same applies to all promising ideas.
>> 
>>> and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our experience.
>> 
>> Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep having 
>> all these discussions.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the mathematics of the first person self-referential 
> modes of the machine (those with “& p”) does account of our experience. And 
> up to now, it does account of the “matter appearances”.
> 
> The universal machine can be said to know that she has a soul, and that she 
> knows that her soul is not a machine, nor even anything third person 
> describable.
> 
> Do you agree that consciousness is what is, from the 1p view of the machine:
> 
> 1) true
> 2) immediately knowable and indubitable
> 3) non provable
> 4) non definable (but still meta-definable using “mechanism”)
> +
> 5) invariant for some digital substitution

I agree.

> 
> Then it is a theorem that the Mechanist Universal machine can prove: 
> "consciousness is true for me”.
> 
> We get a science, extended into a theology, and in particular, we get a 
> theory of quanta, extended by a theory of qualia, making this theory of 
> consciousness testable, by testing its quanta part with nature. Thanks to QM, 
> it fits.
> 
> I am aware that you don’t seem convince by this, but I am not sure what it is 
> that you are missing, or what you think the explanation above is missing.
> 

To say that your theory accounts for our experience, you have to make some 
connection to apples at some point. How do the laws of physics arise when 
seeing the computations from the inside? I mean specifically, in the same way 
that Einstein had to show how his theory swallowed Newton's, you also have to 
swallow the current theories in such a convincing way that we can say that you 
have the TOE. I don't think you have done that so far. I understand your point 
that QM appears to confirm mechanism, but I am asking for more than that.

Telmo.

> 
> 
> Of course, all what I say comes from the theorems of Gödel, Löb and Solovay 
> about the logic of self-reference of the Löbian machines (PA, ZF, ZFC, …).
> 
> Knowing is also defined axiomatically. It is given by the modal logic S4. 
> With the Theaetetus’ definition applied on Gödel’s beweisbar, we get an 
> extension of S4, (S4Grz), making sense for the definition of consciousness.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Telmo.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Bruce 
>>> 

>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRON3vdt4GwUdvbCFnhp98Ges2OyXFAD7dgoThNomJv3w%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e991a7e6-c30c-4726-b53d-ed7e68184783%40www.fastmail.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-21 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, May 20, 2019, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2019 2:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> Physics (and the other sciences) are unreasonably effective at describing 
>>> and accounting for our experiences. Platonism does not have any runs on the 
>>> board at all.
>> 
>> Platonism is a metaphysical position that is not in opposition to physics or 
>> any of the other sciences, on the contrary.
>> 
>> Physicists are funny. You guys have the most successful of all scientific 
>> fields, but not for the reason you imagine. You went so deep that you came 
>> full-circle back to philosophy. But you refuse to admit it, because of some 
>> weird insecurity.
> 
> Not at all. We're modest and don't claim to know the ding an sich things. The 
> way I put it is that we seek a virtuous circle of explanation. Something like:
> 
>  
> ->physics->chemistry->biology->evolution->perception->intelligence->language->mathematics->physics->

Right, I know this very well. I was scientifically "raised" on this model. What 
I think you fail to appreciate is the strange loop hiding in the virtuous 
circle. "Physics", "chemistry", "perception", "intelligence", this is all 
"language". "Language" is also "language". Your virtuous loop contains infinite 
meta-loops that through everything in a loop if you think about it. (sorry for 
the bad puns)

> 
>  although there are other ways of naming things drawing a loop. My point is 
> that we must always explain something in terms of something else we 
> understand. There is no "primitive" in explanations. We build up the virtuous 
> circle by extending its scope to, ideally, encompass everything. Good 
> explanations tend to have predictive power, but prediction is not the same as 
> explanation. Consilence is coherence of explanations across levels.

Ok, again I think we agree on a lot of things. What I think we fundamentally 
disagree on is this: that there is some ideal loop (in your model, with physics 
at the bottom) that is the optimal way to understand reality. I don't think 
there is. I think scientific fields are just prisms, they allow you to look at 
reality from a certain angle but this costs them some blind spots. I don't know 
why things are this way, but I think they clearly are.

I would say that Physics is not a particularly important field at the moment. I 
would say that we live in an era where sociology is the weakest link. That is 
why, as someone wrote here the other day, we discover how to split the atom and 
immediately go to the brink of total destruction, or we discover how to create 
a network of instant communication that spans the globe, and immediately turn 
it into an oppressive panopticon.

> 
>  Platonism is a strictly hierarchical scheme based on language, not 
> explanation or prediction. Platonist want to find a god of the philosophers 
> to replace the Big Guy in the Sky. 

I think there's a bit of projection there. I think it's the physicalists who 
want to replace the Big Guy in the Sky with something. Platonism is just the 
consequence of taking the dream argument seriously, which leads you in the 
direction of less ontological commitments, not more.

Telmo.

>  It's not so much in opposition to science as orthogonal to it. 
> 
> 
>  Mathematicians create imaginary, but logically consistent worlds. Platonists 
> want to live in them.
> 
>  Brent
>  "The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to
>  expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies."
>  --- Norm Levitt
> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07130b72-95bb-88a0-17f1-a730f27d95ee%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6109636d-0761-41b4-bba1-b55946c4c1e1%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-21 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

What about color red ?

On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a694fd70-41de-415e-8c72-69c4ad385aa6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 21 May 2019, at 01:52, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:12:13 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:27 AM Russell Standish  > wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:36PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal  > >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The first order theory of the real numbers does not require
> > arithmetical realism, but the same theory + the trigonometrical
> > functions reintroduce the need of being realist on the integers.
> > Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  in that theory.
> > 
> > If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us which
> > axioms you reject among,
> > 
> > 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> > 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> > 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> > 4) x+0 = x
> > 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> > 6) x*0=0
> > 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
> > 
> > 
> > You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic above.
> > But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of
> > arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are the
> > integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that are
> > "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist independently of
> > the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the axioms,
> > and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on pain of
> > vicious circularity.
> 
> 
> Axioms 1-3 define the successor operator s(x). It is enough to
> generate the set of whole numbers by repeated application on the
> element 0. As a shorthand, we can use traditional decimal notation (eg
> 5) to refer to the element s(s(s(s(s(0). 4&5 define addition, and
> 6&7 define multiplication on these objects.
> 
> That is where the problem lies. If these axioms generate the set of whole 
> numbers, then that is a constructvist or nominalist account of arithmetic. 
> If, however, the integers exist independently and are thus just a model for 
> these axioms (a domain in which the axioms are true), then you have 
> arithmetic realism. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> I find this discussion of Peano's postulates very interesting. FWIW, I 
> usually agree with your views. ISTM that we get our ideas of numbers and 
> arithmetic by viewing the external world. 

But we cannot use this once the mechanist assumption is made. All computations 
are realised in arithmetic, and the appearances of the external world must be 
explained from arithmetic (already assumed when we do physics).

> We see many different things out there, so we get the idea of "many”.

We see many things in all all consistent extensions, which are known to be 
realised in the arithmetical reality. 

> Sometimes we see one of a kind, and can imagine another, and another, leading 
> to the idea of 2 and 3

That is how deducing justifies arithmetic, but he used the idea of “ideas”, 
which we can find by introspection. No need to commit oneself in any 
ontological belief, except our trust in elementary arithmetic, which we need 
anyway when doing any science. Some philosophers argue that science without 
numbers is possible, but that convince only philosophers, if it convince any 
one at all. Your bain already use many principle of arithmetic to make you 
believe in an external world, and that happens in arithmetic in infinitely many 
(sigma_1) true number relations.

> And we can infer an unending collection of that original one of a kind, 
> leading to the inference of a countable set. Addition is implicit, and 
> multiplication is really addition.

That is technically untrue, but that requires a bit of familiarity in 
mathematical logic.

If you three out any of the seven axioms that I have given, you loose Turing 
universality. 

> So arithmetic realism seems like a huge stretch, to say the least.

I defined an arithmetical realist by someone who does not call the director of 
the school to complain when their kids are taught. 

If you don’t believe in arithmetical realism, tell me which arithmetical 
proposition you find dubious. 

> Now this combination of observation and inference are summarized in Peano's 
> postulates, but with the empiricism eliminated. So they don't seem to 
> accomplish anything, and insofar as empiricism is eliminated, they seem less 
> than meets the eye. So my question is this; why are they important; what do 
> they tell us that we don't already know? AG

On the century. Read my papers. Peano, even just Robinson arithmetic (the seven 
axioms I gave, the one which defines arithmetical realism), explains where the 
empirical realm comes from. Physicalist have to assume it, without any 
explanation,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 20 May 2019, at 22:15, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:28 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> 
> (Have you study this: that part took me 30 years of work. It is not obvious, 
> nor is Goldblatt paper obvious). If you study the work (mine and Goldblatt, 
> you might make less bold comments, I think). Here you shows some prejudices.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> Could you give me the reference to Goldblatt's paper? It sounds interesting 
> and tried some searches but couldn't find it.

Hi Jason,

GOLDBLATT R. I., 1974, Semantic Analysis of Orthologic, Journal of 
Philosophical Logic, 3, pp. 19-35.

It is also reprinted in his book:

GOLDBLATT R. I., 1993, Mathematics of Modality, CCLS Lectures Notes, Stanford, 
California. 

That book contains also his 

GOLDBLATT R., 1978, Arithmetical Necessity, Provability and Intuitionistic 
Logic, Theoria, Vol 44, pp. 38-46.

He discovered, independently of Boolos, the logic of []p & p, that is S4Grz.

There are other very interesting papers in that book, notably one on the 
Diodorean Modalities and their use to formalise Minkowki Space-time, 
Grothendieck modalities (an interesting notion of “it is locally true that”, 
etc.

But it is not easy stuff, and Goldblatt is as much concise as logicians can be. 
You will need to revise the Mendelson book. 

Bruno 

> 
> Jason 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUibS-n3wR9Ge3znXmO8kTBGU1ddaABdchkWNmuCUgKBGQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4F5FE71B-5B68-4378-B5A8-D8C04C63F496%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 20 May 2019, at 21:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2019 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2019, at 23:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/17/2019 5:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 16 May 2019, at 01:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/15/2019 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 13 May 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/13/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
 But then what is arithmetical truth? We have no label for it. It 
 cannot be derived from or defined by labels.
>>> And it depends on the model.  Which is why it's undefinable within the 
>>> system.  And also why it's not the same as the "true" in "It is true 
>>> that snow is white.”
>> ?
>> 
>> I don’t see the difference. The standard model of arithmetic is given by 
>> the intersection between all models.
> Isn't the intersection of all models just the provable part?
 By incompleteness that is not the case. The provable part is much smaller 
 than the true part.
>>> Isn't that what I said?
>> No, what you can prove is true in all models, but what is true in all models 
>> can be proved (by completeness),
> 
> So what is true in the all models is what can be proved...which is what I 
> wrote as a question four lines above.
> 

Yes, that was the correct part, but then I added:




>> but that is not equal to what is true in the standard model.


So, the standard model is NOT the provable part. It is huge compared to the 
provable part.





>> 
>> Consistent(PA) is true in the standard model, but is not provable, for 
>> example.
>> 
>> All what you can prive is sigma_1 ([] is a sigma_1-complete predicate), but 
>> it is not pi_1-complete, nor sigma_i or pi_i-complete for any big i).
>> 
>> The standard arithmetical truth is highly not computable. It is bigger than 
>> any sigma_i or pi_i complete sets.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 The true undecidable sentences are true in the standard sense, just 
 possibly false in the non start sense.
>>> Right.  All the models make the provable part "true"; otherwise they 
>>> wouldn't be models.  What you mean by the "true undecidable sentences are 
>>> true in the standard sense" is that they are true in the standard model, 
>>> which is the abstraction from empirically counting, adding, subtracting, 
>>> and multiplying sets of objects.  It is that empirical basis which makes 
>>> the standard model standard and is the reason everyone agree on "it”.
>> Maybe. Maybe not. The discovery of the distinction between standard and not 
>> standard has waited for the discovery of Löwenheim, Skolem, Gödel, etc.
>> 
>> The human conception of numbers is the standard one, almost by definition, 
>> and there is few doubt that Nature has an important teaching role in this, 
>> but that does not entail that Nature could not be an hallucination by 
>> (sheaves of) consciousness flux arising from the universal numbers in 
>> arithmetic.
> 
> I don't know how to understand things like "hallucination arising from 
> universal numbers”


With YD+CT, the actual state of your brain is “reconstituted” in finitely many 
universal number in arithmetic, and in some of those stories the “you” 
associated with them (by YD) might develop some false beliefs, with respect to 
the the number “you” are confronted with in those stories; that is what I call 
hallucination.




> and "sheaves of consciousness flux”. 


Take any universal (and Löbian) number u in the arithmetical reality. An let us 
call u’, u’’, u’’’ … all the variant of that u (i.e. phi_u’ = phi_u, etc.).

They support consciousness, by mechanism, that consciousness differentiate on 
all consistent extensions of the u, u’, u’’, u’’’, etc. The determine a flux of 
consciousness starting from all universal numbers, in arithmetic. 




> I don't know whether you're waxing poetic or just talking gibberish.

I hope it is clearer now. I could add more details, but some revision of the 
phi_i would be needed, and if I explains to much, I will be criticised for 
jargon, etc. I try to find some intermediate between being comprehensible and 
exact. Normally you have followed the seven steps, so such images should make 
sense.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> At this stage, that could be invalid; and we know with mechanism that this 
>> cannot be the case.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
 Typical example: the consistency of PA. Everyone familiar with natural 
 numbers believe that PA is consistent, but PA cannot prove this, and thus 
 there is a model of PA where “PA is inconsistent” is true. It means that 
 some “omega” (see my preceding posts) is a proof of “0=1”; but as omega is 
 not accessible by the successor relation, that they is still consistent.  
 PA + (PA is inconsistent) is

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 20 May 2019, at 21:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2019, at 23:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/17/2019 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 16 May 2019, at 01:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/15/2019 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Mathematical logic distinguish well the name of a thing and the thing 
>> itself. You confuse “0” and 0.
>> 
>> Also, when you say that something does not exist, you might give us your 
>> metaphysical axioms. Taken literarily, what you say is like saying that 
>> the equation x - 4 = 0 has no solution.
> That's confusing "Satisfies a predicate." with "exists".  Such a 
> definition of "exists" is only relative to a context.  Compare, "There 
> exists a physician companion of Sherlock Holmes.”
 In arithmetic, I use the expression “it exists x P(x)” with the meaning 
 the standard model of arithmetic satisfies “it exists x P(x)”. Which is 
 the logician way to describe the meaning of “it exists x such that x-1=0” 
 in high-school.
 
 Since day one, we use the standard model of arithmetic. It is the one 
 everyone understand. The no standard model are sophisticated constructs in 
 the mind of logician, to prove that PA, and all sound machines, have 
 limitation with respect to the standard model, which can be defined online 
 a richer theory.
>>> And I use the standard model of Sherlock Holmes, the one everyone 
>>> understands.  That doesn't make Watson exist.
>> Everyone agree on what what is the standard model of ZF, easily definable in 
>> Analysis or Set theory.
>> 
>> I am not sure what could ever mean: "the standard model of Sherlock Holmes". 
>> Give me your first order theory of Sherlock Holmes.
> 
> The stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle.  Non-standard models are produced 
> by Hollywood studios.

That is funny.



> 
>> 
>> If it is Turing Universal, and does not assume infinities, then I will be 
>> able to have a standard interpretation of it, but your proposition will just 
>> be the invention of a new formalism for “computable”, and as I said, you can 
>> use it as your basic theory. I doubt that Conan Doyle will recognise its 
>> baby, though.
>> 
>> All physics theories use elementary arithmetic. You comparison between 
>> Sherlock Holmes and Arithmetic does not make much sense. Or show me some 
>> application of “Sherlock Holmes” in particle physics.
>> Sherlock Holmes is, by definition, a fictive person. Even if we discover 
>> someone looking very much like him in the “real world”, it would not be 
>> “Sherlock Holmes”, just a guy looking like him, because, by definition, 
>> shellack Holmes do not exist: it is part of its definition, I would say. 
>> Same for the unicorns.
> 
> Right.  He doesn't exist in the real world, although real world detectives 
> may apply his ideas.  Just like arithmetic doesn't exist in the real world, 
> but is useful.

What do you mean by “real world”? 

What do you mean by “arithmetic does not exist in the real world”.

You just invoke your God again, but the whole point of doing science, 
especially theological or metaphysics is to keep personal conviction out of the 
research. To use word like “real” is a symptom of pseudo-science/religion.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15ab3356-6d0a-6ebe-4607-e99d6ae59934%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F7CFA90E-98CF-4399-9C51-F32F08AC877C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 20 May 2019, at 20:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2019 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> There is not one evidence fro any primitive matter. Physics predicts well, 
>> and indeed,
> 
> Which is very strong evidence for physical matter. 

Yes, but not for physicalism or (weak) materialism.




> "Primitive" is just a theological attribute that forbids looking deeper.  So 
> of course physicists don't claim evidence for "primitive" matter.

Absolutely. The problem is not physics nor physicists. The problem is only with 
the theologian or philosophers  who want keep their belief in physicalism, and 
in mechanism.




> 
>> it is its goal, but to give an account of the experience, they need to 
>> identify the first person with its brain, and that requires special 
>> infinities.
>> 
>> On the contrary, mechanism is the only theory that I know of which explain 
>> both the first person experience, and the appearance of a material reality, 
>> and this without anymore ontological commitment than the belief that 
>> equation like x + 4 = 9 admits solutions, and also that x = 1, say, is *not* 
>> a solution. Physics is “platonism” (realist) in that sense, but can only 
>> link brain and mind by using actual infinities in the mind and in the brain, 
>> leading to the assumption that Mechanism has to be wrong (but then 
>> darwinism, molecular biology, genetics, even current formulation of physics 
>> are all wrong).
> 
> But these "infinities" are only required because you assume mathematical 
> realism as primary.

Arithmetical realism. Not mathematical realism, which is impossible with 
arithmetical realism, actually.

Arithmetical realism is needed to define “digital mechanism”, and everybody 
doing science accept arithmetical realism. Even the ultrafinitists agree with 
the axiom of RA.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6ef363a-d2f2-6d15-38c3-7d52033e8b4b%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7846C67F-CF3D-4A14-8A2E-9BDB446468EA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 20 May 2019, at 20:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 May 2019, at 08:56, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch >>> > wrote:
 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:

 Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a simple fact to 
 prove: all computations are realised in  all models of arithmetic.

 But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human mind, and 
 mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream.

 You sound certain.  What is your evidence?

 Jason

 The is no evidence for mathematical realism,
>>> 
>>> There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable 
>>> effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is true? 
>>> No, but then again the same applies to all promising ideas.
>>> 
 and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our 
 experience.
>>> 
>>> Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep having 
>>> all these discussions.
>> 
>> 
>> It seems to me that the mathematics of the first person self-referential 
>> modes of the machine (those with “& p”) does account of our experience. And 
>> up to now, it does account of the “matter appearances”.
>> 
>> The universal machine can be said to know that she has a soul, and that she 
>> knows that her soul is not a machine, nor even anything third person 
>> describable.
>> 
>> Do you agree that consciousness is what is, from the 1p view of the machine:
>> 
>> 1) true
>> 2) immediately knowable and indubitable
>> 3) non provable
>> 4) non definable (but still meta-definable using “mechanism”)
>> +
>> 5) invariant for some digital substitution
>> 
>> Then it is a theorem that the Mechanist Universal machine can prove: 
>> "consciousness is true for me”.
> 
> First, it is a fallacy to infer from "X has properties P" and "Y has 
> properties P" to "X is Y”.

I gave an axiomatic definition. I do not claim that consciousness is defined by 
above, just that it obeys the above. It is a Sufi-definition, like RA or PA can 
be seen as quasi-definition of natural numbers. 

> 
> 1)  It is not the case that whatever I am conscious of I think is true.  For 
> one, I am generally conscious of many things that are not propositions.

The true is about the fact of consciousness, not on the consciousness content. 
1) says only that “I am conscious” is true. Not that what I am conscious of is 
true. And yes, indeed, “I am conscious” is not being conscious of some 
proposition other than the fact that I am conscious.

>  2)  I don't think conscious is immediately knowable.  One is not conscious 
> of being conscious immediately.  I takes reflection.  Your idea of the 1p 
> view of the machine is what is CT provable by the machine.

?

Not at all. “I am conscious” is typically not provable, if only because it is 
not definable, like truth and knowledge. Only the beliefs are communicable 
([]p), not the knowledge ([]p & p, []p & <>t & p). Consciousness is in the 
semantic, in the truth, not in the provability. 

Consciousness is immediately knowable means that you don’t have think to be 
conscious. Sensations + “automatic processing” are enough. If someone hurt you, 
you don’t have to believe or prove anything, you know it “quickly”.

>   Which is certainly not the human view of consciousness.  There are many 
> things provable from PA by me which I will never even consider, much less be 
> immediately aware of.  
> 3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be provable, 
> nor why that is relevant. 

It is part of the axiomatic definition we search. 

Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately true 
and not provable. 

> Proof applies to propositions.  The Moon isn't provable.  But we can study 
> the Moon and predict things about the Moon.

Straw man.

> 4) Under the plausible hypothesis that one is not unique, consciousness is 
> ostensively definable: "Did you feel that pinch?” 

That is not a definition in the sense used here. Definition use only the 
language of the machine, like CL and the symbol s, 0, + and *. But you can use 
induction (mathematical induction).

> If it were not definable we wouldn't know what we're talking about when we 
> say it's not definable. 

But we know very well in this case, as your pinch illustrates. But that is not 
a definition.

> Of course Bertrand Russell once quipped that,"As mathematicians we never know 
> what we're talking about, or whether what we say is true.”

Good point.

> 5) Is just a working hypothesis and since the "level of substitution" could 
> be anything from one e-neuron to ones past light

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 20 May 2019, at 19:15, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:35 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > No, we can’t detect consciousness. I was saying that today positivisme is 
> > abandoned. It is the idea that we have to abandon the concept of 
> > consciousness because we can’t detect it which has been abandonned.
> 
> Only a fool would abandon the concept of consciousness because everybody 
> knows of one example of consciousness that is unimpeachable.

Yes.

> What has NOT been abandoned is the idea that if you wish to understand how 
> the world works the time spent pondering the mysteries of consciousness could 
> be much more productively spent thinking about other things.

It depends of your goal. If it is to explore the universe, you are right. If 
the goal, consists to figure out where the apparent universe comes from, then 
consciousness must be taken into account, and some theories are needed, like 
mechanism.

> 
> >Many people understand the “hard problem of consciousness”
> 
> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because nobody 
> knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used to 
> determine if its been successfully answered.

So you don’t understand it. It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack 
of interest in greek philosophy.

The so called “hard problem of consciousness” is the materialist reformulation 
of the mind-body problem. Today we know that the physcalist solution works only 
by abandoning mechanism in cognitive science.

> 
> > Mathematics is born from theology.
> 
> Mathematics was born from practicality, If I have 4 sheep in my field when 
> the sun comes up I want to be sure I have 4 when the sun comes goes and for 
> that I need mathematics.

That is how computing is born, in Babylon, Persia, much before Pythagorus and 
Euclid made it into a science, and it has only be accepted as such in the 19th 
century. And yet, some people like David Deutsch still believe that mathematics 
is not a science. 

>  
> >> Godel was one of the greatest mathematicians in the world but he was the 
> >> only type of theologian it is possible to be, terrible.   
> 
> >?
> !

The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth. That happens when 
theology is stolen by private interest. The worst of all theologian are the 
materialist, because not only they claim to know the truth, but claim that it 
is science, like in the expression “scientific materialism”. That is 
pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. 
Of course, you have decide that the notion of “god” cannot be improved, meaning 
that you are christian or something, and radical: no right to change or improve 
the theory, especially in front of contradiction.

Atheism is radical post-529 christianism. Before 529, theology was still done 
with the greek method: discussion, theories, experimentation, and changing the 
theories/definitions each time a contradiction appears. 

Bruno

>   John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3%3DR-MZv_X6JJDYQivuJgwAffykJyeJQKZCbKHJcJZzhA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/64981721-EF06-45D0-9A5C-9693EDE0528E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 19 May 2019, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 4:45 PM Russell Standish  > wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 04:12:00PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:27 AM Russell Standish  > >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:36PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett  > >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal 
> > mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > The first order theory of the real numbers does not 
> > require
> > > arithmetical realism, but the same theory + the
> > trigonometrical
> > > functions reintroduce the need of being realist on the
> > integers.
> > > Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  in that theory.
> > >
> > > If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us 
> > which
> > > axioms you reject among,
> > >
> > > 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> > > 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> > > 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> > > 4) x+0 = x
> > > 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> > > 6) x*0=0
> > > 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
> > >
> > >
> > > You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic
> > above.
> > > But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of
> > > arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are
> > the
> > > integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that
> > are
> > > "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist 
> > independently
> > of
> > > the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the
> > axioms,
> > > and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on 
> > pain
> > of
> > > vicious circularity.
> > 
> > 
> > Axioms 1-3 define the successor operator s(x). It is enough to
> > generate the set of whole numbers by repeated application on the
> > element 0. As a shorthand, we can use traditional decimal notation (eg
> > 5) to refer to the element s(s(s(s(s(0). 4&5 define addition, and
> > 6&7 define multiplication on these objects.
> > 
> > 
> > That is where the problem lies. If these axioms generate the set of whole
> > numbers, then that is a constructvist or nominalist account of arithmetic. 
> > If,
> > however, the integers exist independently and are thus just a model for 
> > these
> > axioms (a domain in which the axioms are true), then you have arithmetic
> > realism. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> It is clear that application of the successor function is sufficient to
> generate all whole numbers (given sufficient resources, of
> course). The definitions of addition and multiplication give a
> contructive way of computing these operations.
> 
> I can't see why one can't also suppose that those entities exist
> independently of whether I bother to run a program that generates them
> or not - so one can have it both ways AFAICS. Realism vs nominalism is
> a choice.
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make: Realism is an assumption that has to 
> be added to the axioms.


That is like adding to a theory that you agree with the axioms, but then you 
get a new theory, and you will need to a add that you agree also with the new 
theory, and then … ad infinitum.

See Achille and the Tortoise in Hofstadter’s book.




> 
> 
> > Goedel's incompleteness theorem demonstrates there are true statements
> > of these objects that cannot be proven from those axioms alone.
> > 
> > In that sense, the whole numbers are a consequence of those axioms,
> > whilst also being separately existing entities (having a life of their
> > own).
> > 
> > 
> > That is an independent assumption, not implied by the axioms above, as I 
> > have
> > pointed out.
> >  
> 
> No I was parroting another argument that Goedelian incompleteness
> entails an independent existence - that some things are true (exist)
> 
> A clear confusion between the notions of "truth" and "existence". Truth does 
> not imply existence.

I agree, but existence follow from the truth of a finite or infinite 
disjunction.

ExP(x) is true if P(0) v P(1) v P(2) v P(3) v ….




> It is true that Dr Watson is Sherlock Holmes's sidekick; but that does not 
> entail the existence of either character.

I would say that it does implies existence, but only in a model of the fiction 
made by Conan Doyle, who was not trying to do a theory on the (possible) 
reality.




>  
> even if you cannot generate that thing

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 19 May 2019, at 08:45, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 04:12:00PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:27 AM Russell Standish 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:36PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett 
>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>  On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal >> 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  The first order theory of the real numbers does not require
>>>  arithmetical realism, but the same theory + the
>>trigonometrical
>>>  functions reintroduce the need of being realist on the
>>integers.
>>>  Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  in that theory.
>>> 
>>>  If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us which
>>>  axioms you reject among,
>>> 
>>>  1) 0 ≠ s(x)
>>>  2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
>>>  3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
>>>  4) x+0 = x
>>>  5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>>>  6) x*0=0
>>>  7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic
>>above.
>>> But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of
>>> arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are
>>the
>>> integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that
>>are
>>> "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist independently
>>of
>>> the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the
>>axioms,
>>> and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on pain
>>of
>>> vicious circularity.
>> 
>> 
>>Axioms 1-3 define the successor operator s(x). It is enough to
>>generate the set of whole numbers by repeated application on the
>>element 0. As a shorthand, we can use traditional decimal notation (eg
>>5) to refer to the element s(s(s(s(s(0). 4&5 define addition, and
>>6&7 define multiplication on these objects.
>> 
>> 
>> That is where the problem lies. If these axioms generate the set of whole
>> numbers, then that is a constructvist or nominalist account of arithmetic. 
>> If,
>> however, the integers exist independently and are thus just a model for these
>> axioms (a domain in which the axioms are true), then you have arithmetic
>> realism. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> It is clear that application of the successor function is sufficient to
> generate all whole numbers (given sufficient resources, of
> course). The definitions of addition and multiplication give a
> contructive way of computing these operations.

You get them all with the first two axioms. 0 = 0, so Ex(x=0), then s(0) ≠ 0, 
and from the second axiom, you get s(s(0) ≠ s(0), s(s(s(0) ≠ s(s(0), so with CL 
you get:

Ex(x=0)
Ex(x=s(0)) & s(0) ≠ 0,
Ex(x = s(s(0)) & s(s(0) ≠ s(0), and s(s(0) ≠ 0,
Etc.

Wat you still don’t get here is all partial recursive functions, and all 
programs. Even with just addition, we still don’t get Tiring universality. But 
we get them with addition+multiplication+the predecessor axioms (usually proved 
with induction, and easily shown to be not provable without induction, but the 
theory here has no induction axioms, so “3” is necessary.


> 
> I can't see why one can't also suppose that those entities exist
> independently of whether I bother to run a program that generates them
> or not - so one can have it both ways AFAICS. Realism vs nominalism is
> a choice.

Realism in arithmetic is weaker than physical realism, which is nominalism. If 
we believe that the notion of wave, notably of stationary wave, makes sense, we 
believe in the number and addition. Only a non Turing universal reality could 
threat arithmetical realism, but then there would be non computer in that 
reality.
(Computer are finite object, but their definition requires some 
phenomenological infinities).

Bruno 




> 
>> 
>> 
>>Goedel's incompleteness theorem demonstrates there are true statements
>>of these objects that cannot be proven from those axioms alone.
>> 
>>In that sense, the whole numbers are a consequence of those axioms,
>>whilst also being separately existing entities (having a life of their
>>own).
>> 
>> 
>> That is an independent assumption, not implied by the axioms above, as I have
>> pointed out.
>>  
> 
> No I was parroting another argument that Goedelian incompleteness
> entails an independent existence - that some things are true (exist)
> even if you cannot generate that thing algorithmically. I'm a little
> ambivalent on this argument - it forms the core of the argument a
> friend of mine is writing a book about, but he's only shown me the
> first chapter (which I've critiqued), so I haven't got to the meat of
> it.
> 
>> 
>>There are also nonstandard airthmetics, that involve adding

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 19 May 2019, at 08:12, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:27 AM Russell Standish  > wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:36PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal  > >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The first order theory of the real numbers does not require
> > arithmetical realism, but the same theory + the trigonometrical
> > functions reintroduce the need of being realist on the integers.
> > Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  in that theory.
> > 
> > If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us which
> > axioms you reject among,
> > 
> > 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> > 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> > 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> > 4) x+0 = x
> > 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> > 6) x*0=0
> > 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
> > 
> > 
> > You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic above.
> > But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of
> > arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are the
> > integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that are
> > "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist independently of
> > the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the axioms,
> > and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on pain of
> > vicious circularity.
> 
> 
> Axioms 1-3 define the successor operator s(x). It is enough to
> generate the set of whole numbers by repeated application on the
> element 0. As a shorthand, we can use traditional decimal notation (eg
> 5) to refer to the element s(s(s(s(s(0). 4&5 define addition, and
> 6&7 define multiplication on these objects.
> 
> That is where the problem lies. If these axioms generate the set of whole 
> numbers, then that is a constructvist or nominalist account of arithmetic.

That theory above is not constructive, because it is based on classical logic. 
I don’t see the relation you make between constructivism and nominalism.



> If, however, the integers exist independently and are thus just a model for 
> these axioms (a domain in which the axioms are true), then you have 
> arithmetic realism. You can't have it both ways.

OK. In the sense that we could believe that it exists a solution to the 
equation x + 3 = 5. Not in any metaphysical sense. The only “metaphysical” 
hypothesis is in YD.


> 
> Goedel's incompleteness theorem demonstrates there are true statements
> of these objects that cannot be proven from those axioms alone.
> 
> In that sense, the whole numbers are a consequence of those axioms,
> whilst also being separately existing entities (having a life of their own).
> 
> That is an independent assumption, not implied by the axioms above, as I have 
> pointed out.

That is equivalent with the consistency of the theory, which is not part of the 
axiom, but is always implicitly used by those who agree with those axioms. We 
just cannot and never put in the axioms the fact that we agree with the axioms; 
It is personal, and actually not formalisable.





>  
> There are also nonstandard airthmetics, that involve adding additional
> elements (infinite ones) that cannot be created by successive
> application of s.
> 
> Given these 7 axioms can also be viewed as an algorithm for generating
> the whole numbers, acceptance of the Church-Turing thesis (ie the
> existence of a universal Turing machine) is sufficient to reify the
> whole numbers.
> 
> That remains to be proved. Church-Turing is about calculable numbers, not 
> about reification. It also works in a purely nominalist account.

Yes, but physical nominalism fails once we add the YD to the CT.



>  
> Conversely, this arithmetic is sufficient to generate
> all possible Turing machine (IIRC, the proof involves Diophantine
> equations, but wiser heads then me may confirm or deny).
> 
> A converse position (held by a small minority of mathematicians) is
> that perhaps not all whole numbers exist - that there is some
> (unspecified) maximum integer x for which s(x) is not meaningful, and
> in particular, for which axiom 3 is false. In such an environment, the
> CT thesis must be false, there can be no universal machine capable of
> emulating all other others - there must be at least one such machine
> whose emulation program is too long to fit on the obviously finite length 
> tape.
> 
> Interesting, but not my immediate concern. Which is that the axioms and CT do 
> not imply arithmetical realism: that has to be a separate assumption, and 
> there is no independent justification for such an

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 19 May 2019, at 02:27, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:36PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>>On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>> 
>>On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal 
>>wrote:
>> 
>>The first order theory of the real numbers does not require
>>arithmetical realism, but the same theory + the trigonometrical
>>functions reintroduce the need of being realist on the integers.
>>Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  in that theory.
>> 
>>If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us which
>>axioms you reject among,
>> 
>>1) 0 ≠ s(x)
>>2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
>>3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
>>4) x+0 = x
>>5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>>6) x*0=0
>>7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>> 
>> 
>> You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic above.
>> But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of
>> arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are the
>> integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that are
>> "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist independently of
>> the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the axioms,
>> and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on pain of
>> vicious circularity.
> 
> 
> Axioms 1-3 define the successor operator s(x). It is enough to
> generate the set of whole numbers by repeated application on the
> element 0. As a shorthand, we can use traditional decimal notation (eg
> 5) to refer to the element s(s(s(s(s(0). 4&5 define addition, and
> 6&7 define multiplication on these objects.
> 
> Goedel's incompleteness theorem demonstrates there are true statements
> of these objects that cannot be proven from those axioms alone.
> 
> In that sense, the whole numbers are a consequence of those axioms,
> whilst also being separately existing entities (having a life of their own).
> 
> There are also nonstandard airthmetics, that involve adding additional
> elements (infinite ones) that cannot be created by successive
> application of s.
> 
> Given these 7 axioms can also be viewed as an algorithm for generating
> the whole numbers,

And generating all computations. That is proved by showing that all partial 
computable function are represented in that theory. If phi_i(j) = k, that can 
be proved in that theory (amazingly enough).



> acceptance of the Church-Turing thesis (ie the
> existence of a universal Turing machine)

Well, I will cut the hair, but of course, the existence of the universal Turing 
machine is a theorem in that theory. Church thesis is the thesis that this 
Tiuring universal machine is truly universal for the intuitive notion of 
computability.



> is sufficient to reify the
> whole numbers. Conversely, this arithmetic is sufficient to generate
> all possible Turing machine (IIRC, the proof involves Diophantine
> equations, but wiser heads then me may confirm or deny).

Very simple one. Like defining x < y by x = y + a (or Ea(x = y + a). 

It happens that the Diophantine equations are already Turing universal, but 
that is far difficult to show. Cf the works of Putnam, Davis, Robinson, and 
finally Matiyasevich.



> 
> A converse position (held by a small minority of mathematicians) is
> that perhaps not all whole numbers exist - that there is some
> (unspecified) maximum integer x for which s(x) is not meaningful, and
> in particular, for which axiom 3 is false.

?

3 just say that all successor have a predecessor. It remains true for 
ultrafinitism.

Contrary to what I claimed a long time ago, ultrafinitim is consistent with 
mechanism. It is just weird, but it i.e. easy to build a model of the theory 
above with a bigger natural number, like it is easy to build a model of the 
theory above in which 0 + x is different from x + 0. The theory is very weak, 
yet Turing complete.



> In such an environment, the
> CT thesis must be false, there can be no universal machine capable of
> emulating all other others - there must be at least one such machine
> whose emulation program is too long to fit on the obviously finite length 
> tape.

This does not follow.


> 
> Bruno's work does not address this ultrafinitist case, as the CT
> thesis is an explicit assumption.

CT just looks weird with ultrafinitism, and we would lose the notion of 
Löbianity, but we can still study the Löbian machine in the ultrafinitist 
position. The physical universe would just be even more delusional, but not 
much more than with finitism.



> Except that the Movie Graph Argument
> is supposedly about that case.

I don’t understand this.

Bruno 



> 
> Cheers
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread Alan Grayson



On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:12:13 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:27 AM Russell Standish  > wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:36PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> > 
> > On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal  >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The first order theory of the real numbers does not require
> > arithmetical realism, but the same theory + the 
> trigonometrical
> > functions reintroduce the need of being realist on the 
> integers.
> > Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  in that theory.
> > 
> > If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us which
> > axioms you reject among,
> > 
> > 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> > 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> > 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> > 4) x+0 = x
> > 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> > 6) x*0=0
> > 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
> > 
> > 
> > You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic 
> above.
> > But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of
> > arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are 
> the
> > integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that 
> are
> > "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist 
> independently of
> > the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the 
> axioms,
> > and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on pain 
> of
> > vicious circularity.
>
>
> Axioms 1-3 define the successor operator s(x). It is enough to
> generate the set of whole numbers by repeated application on the
> element 0. As a shorthand, we can use traditional decimal notation (eg
> 5) to refer to the element s(s(s(s(s(0). 4&5 define addition, and
> 6&7 define multiplication on these objects.
>
>
> That is where the problem lies. If these axioms generate the set of whole 
> numbers, then that is a constructvist or nominalist account of arithmetic. 
> If, however, the integers exist independently and are thus just a model for 
> these axioms (a domain in which the axioms are true), then you have 
> arithmetic realism. You can't have it both ways.
>

*I find this discussion of Peano's postulates very interesting. FWIW, I 
usually agree with your views. ISTM that we get our ideas of numbers and 
arithmetic by viewing the external world.  We see many different things out 
there, so we get the idea of "many". Sometimes we see one of a kind, and 
can imagine another, and another, leading to the idea of 2 and 3 And we can 
infer an unending collection of that original one of a kind, leading to the 
inference of a countable set. Addition is implicit, and multiplication is 
really addition. So arithmetic realism seems like a huge stretch, to say 
the least. Now this combination of observation and inference are summarized 
in Peano's postulates, but with the empiricism eliminated. So they don't 
seem to accomplish anything, and insofar as empiricism is eliminated, they 
seem less than meets the eye. So my question is this; why are they 
important; what do they tell us that we don't already know? AG*

>
> Goedel's incompleteness theorem demonstrates there are true statements
> of these objects that cannot be proven from those axioms alone.
>
> In that sense, the whole numbers are a consequence of those axioms,
> whilst also being separately existing entities (having a life of their 
> own).
>
>
> That is an independent assumption, not implied by the axioms above, as I 
> have pointed out.
>  
>
> There are also nonstandard airthmetics, that involve adding additional
> elements (infinite ones) that cannot be created by successive
> application of s.
>
> Given these 7 axioms can also be viewed as an algorithm for generating
> the whole numbers, acceptance of the Church-Turing thesis (ie the
> existence of a universal Turing machine) is sufficient to reify the
> whole numbers.
>
>
> That remains to be proved. Church-Turing is about calculable numbers, not 
> about 
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e702030b-7373-4bb9-9620-b9bfbf1d1660%40googlegroups.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:28 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>
> (Have you study this: that part took me 30 years of work. It is not
> obvious, nor is Goldblatt paper obvious). If you study the work (mine and
> Goldblatt, you might make less bold comments, I think). Here you shows some
> prejudices.
>
>
>
Hi Bruno,

Could you give me the reference to Goldblatt's paper? It sounds interesting
and tried some searches but couldn't find it.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUibS-n3wR9Ge3znXmO8kTBGU1ddaABdchkWNmuCUgKBGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/20/2019 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 May 2019, at 23:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 5:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 May 2019, at 01:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/15/2019 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 May 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/13/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

But then what is arithmetical truth? We have no label for it. It cannot be
derived from or defined by labels.

And it depends on the model. Which is why it's undefinable within the system. And also why
it's not the same as the "true" in "It is true that snow is white.”

I don’t see the difference. The standard model of arithmetic is given by the
intersection between all models.

Isn't the intersection of all models just the provable part?

By incompleteness that is not the case. The provable part is much smaller than
the true part.

Isn't that what I said?

No, what you can prove is true in all models, but what is true in all models
can be proved (by completeness),

So what is true in the all models is what can be proved...which is what
I wrote as a question four lines above.

but that is not equal to what is true in the standard model.

Consistent(PA) is true in the standard model, but is not provable, for example.

All what you can prive is sigma_1 ([] is a sigma_1-complete predicate), but it
is not pi_1-complete, nor sigma_i or pi_i-complete for any big i).

The standard arithmetical truth is highly not computable. It is bigger than any
sigma_i or pi_i complete sets.

The true undecidable sentences are true in the standard sense, just possibly
false in the non start sense.

Right. All the models make the provable part "true"; otherwise they wouldn't be models. What
you mean by the "true undecidable sentences are true in the standard sense" is that they are
true in the standard model, which is the abstraction from empirically counting, adding, subtracting, and
multiplying sets of objects. It is that empirical basis which makes the standard model standard and is
the reason everyone agree on "it”.

Maybe. Maybe not. The discovery of the distinction between standard and not
standard has waited for the discovery of Löwenheim, Skolem, Gödel, etc.

The human conception of numbers is the standard one, almost by definition, and
there is few doubt that Nature has an important teaching role in this, but that
does not entail that Nature could not be an hallucination by (sheaves of)
consciousness flux arising from the universal numbers in arithmetic.

I don't know how to understand things like "hallucination arising from
universal numbers" and "sheaves of consciousness flux". I don't know
whether you're waxing poetic or just talking gibberish.

Brent

At this stage, that could be invalid; and we know with mechanism that this
cannot be the case.

Bruno

Brent

Typical example: the consistency of PA. Everyone familiar with natural numbers
believe that PA is consistent, but PA cannot prove this, and thus there is a
model of PA where “PA is inconsistent” is true. It means that some “omega” (see
my preceding posts) is a proof of “0=1”; but as omega is not accessible by the
successor relation, that they is still consistent. PA + (PA is inconsistent)
is a consistent theory of natural numbers, but it is not a sound theory. It is
false in the standard model.

Bruno

Brent

See my other recent explanations.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/816e0c3c-76cc-82c8-a3b3-18f6af30b042%40verizon.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab8bbe0f-a236-9628-c030-4de2928ca181%40verizon.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d0ad3345-c0f4-878f-9271-07db96cb5190%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/20/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 May 2019, at 23:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 May 2019, at 01:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/15/2019 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Mathematical logic distinguish well the name of a thing and the thing itself.
You confuse “0” and 0.

Also, when you say that something does not exist, you might give us your
metaphysical axioms. Taken literarily, what you say is like saying that the
equation x - 4 = 0 has no solution.

That's confusing "Satisfies a predicate." with "exists". Such a definition of
"exists" is only relative to a context. Compare, "There exists a physician companion of Sherlock
Holmes.”

In arithmetic, I use the expression “it exists x P(x)” with the meaning the
standard model of arithmetic satisfies “it exists x P(x)”. Which is the
logician way to describe the meaning of “it exists x such that x-1=0” in
high-school.

Since day one, we use the standard model of arithmetic. It is the one everyone
understand. The no standard model are sophisticated constructs in the mind of
logician, to prove that PA, and all sound machines, have limitation with
respect to the standard model, which can be defined online a richer theory.

And I use the standard model of Sherlock Holmes, the one everyone understands.
That doesn't make Watson exist.

Everyone agree on what what is the standard model of ZF, easily definable in
Analysis or Set theory.

I am not sure what could ever mean: "the standard model of Sherlock Holmes".
Give me your first order theory of Sherlock Holmes.

The stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Non-standard models are
produced by Hollywood studios.

If it is Turing Universal, and does not assume infinities, then I will be able
to have a standard interpretation of it, but your proposition will just be the
invention of a new formalism for “computable”, and as I said, you can use it as
your basic theory. I doubt that Conan Doyle will recognise its baby, though.

All physics theories use elementary arithmetic. You comparison between Sherlock
Holmes and Arithmetic does not make much sense. Or show me some application of
“Sherlock Holmes” in particle physics.
Sherlock Holmes is, by definition, a fictive person. Even if we discover
someone looking very much like him in the “real world”, it would not be
“Sherlock Holmes”, just a guy looking like him, because, by definition,
shellack Holmes do not exist: it is part of its definition, I would say. Same
for the unicorns.

Right. He doesn't exist in the real world, although real world
detectives may apply his ideas. Just like arithmetic doesn't exist in
the real world, but is useful.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15ab3356-6d0a-6ebe-4607-e99d6ae59934%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/20/2019 2:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Physics (and the other sciences) are unreasonably effective at
describing and accounting for our experiences. Platonism does not
have any runs on the board at all.

Platonism is a metaphysical position that is not in opposition to
physics or any of the other sciences, on the contrary.

Physicists are funny. You guys have the most successful of all
scientific fields, but not for the reason you imagine. You went so
deep that you came full-circle back to philosophy. But you refuse to
admit it, because of some weird insecurity.

Not at all. We're modest and don't claim to know the ding an sich
things. The way I put it is that we seek a virtuous circle of
explanation. Something like:

->physics->chemistry->biology->evolution->perception->intelligence->language->mathematics->physics->

although there are other ways of naming things drawing a loop. My point
is that we must always explain something in terms of something else we
understand. There is no "primitive" in explanations. We build up the
virtuous circle by extending its scope to, ideally, encompass
everything. Good explanations tend to have predictive power, but
prediction is not the same as explanation. Consilence is coherence of
explanations across levels.

Platonism is a strictly hierarchical scheme based on language, not
explanation or prediction. Platonist want to find a god of the
philosophers to replace the Big Guy in the Sky. It's not so much in
opposition to science as orthogonal to it. Mathematicians create
imaginary, but logically consistent worlds. Platonists want to live in
them.

Brent
"The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to
expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies."
--- Norm Levitt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07130b72-95bb-88a0-17f1-a730f27d95ee%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/20/2019 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is not one evidence fro any primitive matter. Physics predicts
well, and indeed,

Which is very strong evidence for physical matter. "Primitive" is just
a theological attribute that forbids looking deeper. So of course
physicists don't claim evidence for "primitive" matter.

it is its goal, but to give an account of the experience, they need to
identify the first person with its brain, and that requires special
infinities.

On the contrary, mechanism is the only theory that I know of which
explain both the first person experience, and the appearance of a
material reality, and this without anymore ontological commitment than
the belief that equation like x + 4 = 9 admits solutions, and also
that x = 1, say, is *not* a solution. Physics is “platonism” (realist)
in that sense, but can only link brain and mind by using actual
infinities in the mind and in the brain, leading to the assumption
that Mechanism has to be wrong (but then darwinism, molecular biology,
genetics, even current formulation of physics are all wrong).

But these "infinities" are only required because you assume mathematical
realism as primary.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6ef363a-d2f2-6d15-38c3-7d52033e8b4b%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/20/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 May 2019, at 08:56, Telmo Menezes > wrote:

On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch > wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a
simple fact to prove: all computations are realised in
all models of arithmetic.

But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human
mind, and mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream.

You sound certain. What is your evidence?

Jason

The is no evidence for mathematical realism,

There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable
effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is
true? No, but then again the same applies to all promising ideas.

and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our
experience.

Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep
having all these discussions.

It seems to me that the mathematics of the first person
self-referential modes of the machine (those with “& p”) does account
of our experience. And up to now, it does account of the “matter
appearances”.

The universal machine can be said to know that she has a soul, and
that she knows that her soul is not a machine, nor even anything third
person describable.

Do you agree that consciousness is what is, from the 1p view of the
machine:

1) true
2) immediately knowable and indubitable
3) non provable
4) non definable (but still meta-definable using “mechanism”)
+
5) invariant for some digital substitution

Then it is a theorem that the Mechanist Universal machine can prove:
"consciousness is true for me”.

First, it is a fallacy to infer from "X has properties P" and "Y has
properties P" to "X is Y".

1) It is not the case that whatever I am conscious of I think is true.
For one, I am generally conscious of many things that are not propositions.
2) I don't think conscious is immediately knowable. One is not
conscious of being conscious immediately. I takes reflection. Your
idea of the 1p view of the machine is what is CT provable by the
machine. Which is certainly not the human view of consciousness. There
are many things provable from PA by me which I will never even consider,
much less be immediately aware of.
3) I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be
provable, nor why that is relevant. Proof applies to propositions. The
Moon isn't provable. But we can study the Moon and predict things about
the Moon.
4) Under the plausible hypothesis that one is not unique, consciousness
is ostensively definable: "Did you feel that pinch?" If it were not
definable we wouldn't know what we're talking about when we say it's not
definable. Of course Bertrand Russell once quipped that,"As
mathematicians we never know what we're talking about, or whether what
we say is true."
5) Is just a working hypothesis and since the "level of substitution"
could be anything from one e-neuron to ones past light cone, it's not
very clear what is it's significance.

We get a science, extended into a theology, and in particular, we get
a theory of quanta, extended by a theory of qualia, making this theory
of consciousness testable, by testing its quanta part with nature.
Thanks to QM, it fits.

It fits like my overcoat fits my grandson...nothing is left sticking out.

Brent

I am aware that you don’t seem convince by this, but I am not sure
what it is that you are missing, or what you think the explanation
above is missing.

Of course, all what I say comes from the theorems of Gödel, Löb and
Solovay about the logic of self-reference of the Löbian machines (PA,
ZF, ZFC, …).

Knowing is also defined axiomatically. It is given by the modal logic
S4. With the Theaetetus’ definition applied on Gödel’s beweisbar, we
get an extension of S4, (S4Grz), making sense for the definition of
consciousness.

Bruno

Telmo.

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email toeverything-l...@googlegroups.com
.

Visit this group athttps://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web
visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRON3vdt4GwUdvbCFnhp98Ges2OyXFAD7dgoThNomJv3w%40mail.gmail.com
.

For more options,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread John Clark

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>
>> *>> There are proposed cosmologies that allow for an infinite number of
>> computational steps to occur - IIRC, the "big rip" is one such.*
>
>
> I don't think so -- the "big rip" would simple tear the physical computer
> to pieces.
>

True but before the computer got ripped apart you could extract a
arbitrarily large amount of work from the Big Rip itself to power that
computer, so it could perform a arbitrarily large number of calculations.
If there were no last computation on the computer running a upload then the
upload would not have a last thought, and thus would achieve subjective
immortality.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1w5XL50O9ETsnED33DkadLmqdgXzZt%3D_Gp2keTgPm2yA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread John Clark

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:35 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> No, we can’t detect consciousness. I was saying that today positivisme
> is abandoned. It is the idea that we have to abandon the concept of
> consciousness because we can’t detect it which has been abandonned.*
>

Only a fool would abandon the concept of consciousness because everybody
knows of one example of consciousness that is unimpeachable. What has NOT
been abandoned is the idea that if you wish to understand how the world
works the time spent pondering the mysteries of consciousness could be much
more productively spent thinking about other things.

*>Many people understand the “hard problem of consciousness”*
>

Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because
nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used to
determine if its been successfully answered.

> *Mathematics is born from theology. *
>

Mathematics was born from practicality, If I have 4 sheep in my field when
the sun comes up I want to be sure I have 4 when the sun comes goes and for
that I need mathematics.

> >> Godel was one of the greatest mathematicians in the world but he was
>> the only type of theologian it is possible to be, terrible.
>
>
> >?
>
*!*
  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3%3DR-MZv_X6JJDYQivuJgwAffykJyeJQKZCbKHJcJZzhA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 17 May 2019, at 23:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/17/2019 5:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 16 May 2019, at 01:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/15/2019 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 13 May 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/13/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> But then what is arithmetical truth? We have no label for it. It cannot 
>> be derived from or defined by labels.
> And it depends on the model.  Which is why it's undefinable within the 
> system.  And also why it's not the same as the "true" in "It is true that 
> snow is white.”
 ?
 
 I don’t see the difference. The standard model of arithmetic is given by 
 the intersection between all models.
>>> Isn't the intersection of all models just the provable part?
>> By incompleteness that is not the case. The provable part is much smaller 
>> than the true part.
> 
> Isn't that what I said?

No, what you can prove is true in all models, but what is true in all models 
can be proved (by completeness), but that is not equal to what is true in the 
standard model. 

Consistent(PA) is true in the standard model, but is not provable, for example.

All what you can prive is sigma_1 ([] is a sigma_1-complete predicate), but it 
is not pi_1-complete, nor sigma_i or pi_i-complete for any big i).

The standard arithmetical truth is highly not computable. It is bigger than any 
sigma_i or pi_i complete sets.





> 
>> The true undecidable sentences are true in the standard sense, just possibly 
>> false in the non start sense.
> 
> Right.  All the models make the provable part "true"; otherwise they wouldn't 
> be models.  What you mean by the "true undecidable sentences are true in the 
> standard sense" is that they are true in the standard model, which is the 
> abstraction from empirically counting, adding, subtracting, and multiplying 
> sets of objects.  It is that empirical basis which makes the standard model 
> standard and is the reason everyone agree on "it”.

Maybe. Maybe not. The discovery of the distinction between standard and not 
standard has waited for the discovery of Löwenheim, Skolem, Gödel, etc.

The human conception of numbers is the standard one, almost by definition, and 
there is few doubt that Nature has an important teaching role in this, but that 
does not entail that Nature could not be an hallucination by (sheaves of) 
consciousness flux arising from the universal numbers in arithmetic. At this 
stage, that could be invalid; and we know with mechanism that this cannot be 
the case.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
>> 
>> Typical example: the consistency of PA. Everyone familiar with natural 
>> numbers believe that PA is consistent, but PA cannot prove this, and thus 
>> there is a model of PA where “PA is inconsistent” is true. It means that 
>> some “omega” (see my preceding posts) is a proof of “0=1”; but as omega is 
>> not accessible by the successor relation, that they is still consistent.  PA 
>> + (PA is inconsistent) is a consistent theory of natural numbers, but it is 
>> not a sound theory. It is false in the standard  model.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 See my other recent explanations.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/816e0c3c-76cc-82c8-a3b3-18f6af30b042%40verizon.net.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab8bbe0f-a236-9628-c030-4de2928ca181%40verizon.net.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d0ad3345-c0f4-878f-9271-07db96cb5190%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3E48ED4B-75CC-4B6A-B69D-F80D29291248%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon



> On 17 May 2019, at 20:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/17/2019 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's a matter of equivocating on "the natural numbers".  If you regard them 
>>> as a theory of things, the way you learn them at your mother's knee, then 
>>> there are objective truths "Two garbanzo beans plus two chick peas make 
>>> four beans." the way "Snow is white."  But if you want to evaluate the 
>>> truth of "2+2=4" that's a  proposition in arithmetic.  If it's PA then it's 
>>> true in every model because it's a theorem.  But when you say there are 
>>> true statements of arithmetic that aren't provable in PA, what they are 
>>> depends on the model.
>> 
>> Hmm… No.
> 
> Are you saying that non-standard models of arithmetic don't assign different 
> truth values to some propositions?

Indeed. All what you prove in PA is true in all Models, standard and non 
standard alike. This follows from completeness (also proved by Gödel).

The non standard models assign just “false” truth value to UNDECIDABLE 
sentences. Like assigning true to “provable(false)”.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/382aedaf-a8bb-a63b-dcfa-01ef7534dab1%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E26427AF-7B6D-40E9-9B98-DA41508A766F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 17 May 2019, at 14:47, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 16 May 2019, at 03:27, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:59 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> The first order theory of the real numbers does not require arithmetical 
>> realism, but the same theory + the trigonometrical functions reintroduce the 
>> need of being realist on the integers. Sin(2Pix) = 0 defines the integers  
>> in that theory.
>> 
>> If you reject arithmetical realism, you need to tell us which axioms you 
>> reject among,
>> 
>> 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
>> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
>> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
>> 4) x+0 = x
>> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>> 6) x*0=0
>> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>> 
>> Some people add some metaphysical baggage in “realism” which is not there., 
>> “Arithmetical realism” is just the doctrine according to which the axioms 
>> above make sense. Usually, they are implicitly taught in primary school.
>> It is used only for the Church-Turing thesis and the (mathematical) 
>> definition of “digital machine”.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> You are just using your personal Humpty-Dumpty dictionary to define 
>> "realism". Arithmetical realism is a bit more than just the axioms above -- 
>> it is a metaphysical notion.
> 
> “Metaphysical notion is fuzzy”, but I have given a precise definition of 
> realism in arithmetic, the one used in the work. Realism is just the belief 
> in the truth of the axioms above (and a bit of logic).
> 
> You say that "realism" is just acceptance of the axioms of arithmetic above. 
> But then you say that arithmetical statements are true in the model of 
> arithmetic given by the natural integers. There is a problem here: are the 
> integers the model of your axioms above, or is it only the axioms that are 
> "real". If the integers are the model, then they must exist independently of 
> the axioms -- they are separately existing entities that satisfy the axioms, 
> and their existence cannot then be a consequence of the axioms, on pain of 
> vicious circularity.

If you agree with the axiom above, you can follow the derivation of physics 
from them.

But to understand why we have to do this, and why there are no other ways, we 
need Mechanism, which, as you remark correctly, ask for much more than those 
axioms, the YD leap of faith.

The integers are not the model, but the element of the model. The model is the 
set theoretical structure (N, 0, s, +, x). The symbol “0” is interpreted by the 
number 0, s by the function x + 1, etc. 

No theories can prove or even talk about its model, by results by Gödel and 
Tarski. We use always stronger theories to stay the semantics of smaller 
theories. That is obligatory by incompleteness. A bit like Riemann who use 
complex number to study the distribution of the primes. There are simply no 
effective theories at all of the natural numbers. Arithmetic is essentially 
undecidable: there are no complete or total theories of the natural numbers. 
That is why, in part, we don’t need to assume more than the numbers. Any 
universal machinery would be OK. Physics and theology are independent of the 
choice of the ontology, which is only on the terms of any Turing universal 
machinery.

You assumption that there is a primitive reality simply does not work, or you 
need to be realist on much larger part of mathematics, so to make sense of an 
infinite body, to get back the identity Brian-mind, but then you just propose a 
non mechanist theory (more exactly, you point on a theory which do not yet 
exist), and this just to avoid a simpler solution based on a simpler theory. 
That is speculation with the goal to avoid testing a simpler theory. That is 
not the scientific attitude.

Bruno

> 
> The alternative is to say that the integers are defined by the axioms, and 
> cannot, therefore, be a model (in your sense, viz, independent entities that 
> satisfy the axioms).
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQkbFdDHToiXjOGeVdWAmJ3x5o1GwaSnTBiB5E18QPFHQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-20 Thread Telmo Menezes



On Fri, May 17, 2019, at 09:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:56 PM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> __
>> On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
 On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett  
 wrote:
> 
>> Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a simple fact to 
>> prove: all computations are realised in all models of arithmetic.
> 
> But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human mind, and 
> mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream.
> 
 
 You sound certain. What is your evidence?
 
 Jason
>>> 
>>> The is no evidence for mathematical realism,
>> 
>> There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable 
>> effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is true? 
>> No, but then again the same applies to all promising ideas.
> 
> The "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is not in the least unreasonable. 
> After all, we designed mathematics

The question is: did we design it or did we discover it? This is a famously 
unsettled question, despite your certainties.

A thought experiment: if we made contact with an advance alien civilization, 
would you bet that their math is the same as ours as something else entirely? 
Why?

>  to describe the physical world. The fact that it is successful just means 
> that we are cleverer than some people give us credit for! It is not evidence 
> for anything magical about mathematics.
> 
>>> and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our experience.
>> 
>> Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep having 
>> all these discussions.
> 
> Physics (and the other sciences) are unreasonably effective at describing and 
> accounting for our experiences. Platonism does not have any runs on the board 
> at all.

Platonism is a metaphysical position that is not in opposition to physics or 
any of the other sciences, on the contrary.

Physicists are funny. You guys have the most successful of all scientific 
fields, but not for the reason you imagine. You went so deep that you came 
full-circle back to philosophy. But you refuse to admit it, because of some 
weird insecurity.

Telmo.

> 
> Bruce 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSJx13n4Hg4dzmqQsxprX4jL61cgG7Qq4gTiBNs%3Do_aRA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e77da538-68d3-45ef-8705-57577d4f136e%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 17 May 2019, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 15 May 2019, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> On 10 May 2019, at 15:16, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> That is impossible. The first person plural is when two persons enter the 
>>> annihilation box. They will share the indeterminacy, but that indeterminacy 
>>> is still 1p. The “3p” see only two guys being duplicated.
>>> 
>>> In your duplication experiments, but not in QM; no one 'sees' the quantum 
>>> superposition continuing after a measurement has been made.
>> 
>> Which duplication experiments. The one is step 3, or the one in step seven? 
>> The whole point is that the second one should give the entanglement, and 
>> that is why I study the modes of self-reference corresponding to it, and 
>> there, we do find a quantum formalism. 
>> 
>> I am talking about person duplication as in step 3. There is no other form 
>> of duplication involved. Step 7 introduces the dovetailer, with the 
>> possibility of multiple computational threads passing through the same 
>> conscious state. But that is not duplication —
> 
> 
> It is duplication (multiplication) by the invariance of delays, the 
> virtual/physical first person invariance, etc.
> You can call them “arithmetical preparation” but they put us, here and now, 
> in front of an infinite self-multiplication.
> 
>> it is just separate persons having the same thoughts by chance.
> 
> But then, they are the same person, and they are confronted with the global 
> (on the UD work) first person indeterminacy.
> 
> That is an enormous leap of faith.

I agree. That is why modesty requires us to tell it is a theology. Now, by 
definition of the substitution level, it is not just the behaviour which is the 
same, it is all what is needed to be you, unless you are an actually infinite 
being, but then, Darwinism and most of current science are deeply flawed.




> There is no reason to suppose that they are the same person, not just many 
> persons that happen to have the same though by chance.

Same thought, same character, same feeling of having survived. Of course, by 
adding enough special infinities, you can make mechanism wrong. But when we do 
science, we do not add supplementary hypothesis to conform to our metaphysics, 
especially when they bring back the problem we have just solved.



> This is your standard "cat=dog" argument -- a superficial similarities 
> implies identity.

On the contrary, the modes of self-reference implies that the identity is far 
beyond what is apparent. It contains the whole non communicable part.




> 
> 
>  
>> Nothing to do with entanglement in either case. You do not find the quantum 
>> formalism anywhere.
> 
> By reversing a theorem by Goldblatt, the “material modes” of self)reference 
> do give the necessary beginning of the quantum formalism.
> 
> Balderdash.

?

(Have you study this: that part took me 30 years of work. It is not obvious, 
nor is Goldblatt paper obvious). If you study the work (mine and Goldblatt, you 
might make less bold comments, I think). Here you shows some prejudices.




>  
> You ignore the translation of the UDA in arithmetic.
> 
> Arithmetic does not exist independently.

OK. Then tell me on what numbers and addition/multuplication depends. Formalise 
your idea in a first order theory, so that we can make the comparison.

And don’t beg the question by invoking your God “matter”, please,




>  
>>>  
>>> The mechanist definition of the first person plural correspond to the 
>>> quantum notion of entanglement, or what I describe often as the contagion 
>>> of superposition, due to the linearity of the tensor product.
>>> 
>>> That is totally meaningless; your 1pp has nothing to do with entanglement.
>> 
>> If you prove this, and assuming QM correct, you refute Mechanism (modulo a 
>> logical possible malevolent “bostromian” simulation).
>> 
>> OK, then Mechanism is falsified. Because you have not shown that quantum 
>> entanglement arises from personal duplication.
> 
> False. We miss the existence of objet to which entanglement applies, but we 
> have the fact that if they appear, there will be entanglement.
> 
> As I have said before, hubris!

Without an argument, that looks like a simple insult, which is indeed the case 
most of the time when people does not want to argue, and only sell their 
pseudo-religion.




>  
> Wr do explain the quantum logic aspect of any possible “nature” available to 
> machines.
> 
> The goal is not in doing physics. Physics does that quite well. The goal is 
> in explaining where physics come from, and this without adding ontological 
> commitment incompatible with mechanism and

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 17 May 2019, at 09:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 1:56:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote:
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable 
> effectiveness of math". 
> 
> As Max Tegmark points out, all of our scientific theories (he was talking 
> about physics, checked out on computers) do not need infinities:
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
> 
> 
> Our challenge as physicists is to discover this elegant way and the 
> infinity-free equations describing it—the true laws of physics. To start this 
> search in earnest, we need to question infinity. I’m betting that we also 
> need to let go of it.
> 
> So infinity-free mathematics is what Tegmark says is the thing to do.

But that does not make any sense, except for the ontology, in which case it is 
required by the mechanist assumption. Then physics has to be derived from 
arithmetic.

RA is infinity free, but the semantic of RA requires infinite. The ontology is 
infinity free, but the phenomenology of the finite numbers has to reintroduce 
infinities, even for the physics available.

Bruno 



> 
> @philithrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f9aec462-955c-4613-809a-398d21995141%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9A45DD2F-6140-4333-B40F-3EC6C51ACE2C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 17 May 2019, at 09:31, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:56 PM Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>> 
>> Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a simple fact to prove: 
>> all computations are realised in  all models of arithmetic.
>> 
>> But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human mind, and mechanism 
>> is manifestly a pipe dream.
>> 
>> 
>> You sound certain.  What is your evidence?
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> The is no evidence for mathematical realism,
> 
> There is plenty of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable 
> effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is true? No, 
> but then again the same applies to all promising ideas.
> 
> The "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is not in the least unreasonable. 
> After all, we designed mathematics to describe the physical world. The fact 
> that it is successful just means that we are cleverer than some people give 
> us credit for! It is not evidence for anything magical about mathematics.
>  
>> and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our experience.
> 
> Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep having all 
> these discussions.
> 
> Physics (and the other sciences) are unreasonably effective at describing and 
> accounting for our experiences.

Only by assuming we are actual infinite beings, but there are no evidences for 
this, nor any theory using this.

> Platonism does not have any runs on the board at all.

It follows from the mechanist hypothesis, at the base of all science today. In 
fact, mathematician meant originally at Plato’s time “skeptical about Aristotle 
materialist theology”. 

There is not one evidence fro any primitive matter. Physics predicts well, and 
indeed, it is its goal, but to give an account of the experience, they need to 
identify the first person with its brain, and that requires special infinities. 

On the contrary, mechanism is the only theory that I know of which explain both 
the first person experience, and the appearance of a material reality, and this 
without anymore ontological commitment than the belief that equation like x + 4 
= 9 admits solutions, and also that x = 1, say, is *not* a solution. Physics is 
“platonism” (realist) in that sense, but can only link brain and mind by using 
actual infinities in the mind and in the brain, leading to the assumption that 
Mechanism has to be wrong (but then darwinism, molecular biology, genetics, 
even current formulation of physics are all wrong).

Bruno

> 
> Bruce 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSJx13n4Hg4dzmqQsxprX4jL61cgG7Qq4gTiBNs%3Do_aRA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/608ECAA7-FFAC-4E9F-AAC3-C952A7B1BDC3%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon