Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 20 May 2015, at 18:36, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The question is not about doing a computation, but about the existence of computation in the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality, which provably emulates all computation, It can't emulate a damn thing unless the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) exists and if it does then produce it and have it calculate 1+1. Do that and you will have won the argument. You keep asking me to change water in wine. I keep asking for experimental evidence to backup the moonshine you're peddling, it's a little thing called the Scientific Method. It is a case where we don't need any evidence at all, as I am referring to a theorem in Peano arithmetic, admitting (and knowing) the standard definitions. It is proved in most textbooks, and I have already explained the basic simple, but tedious to explain, ideas on this list. And I will do it again, most plausibly, or perhaps somewhere we might be less distracted by trolls. You are attacking only your own crazy idea. You will not find a post where I have asserted anything even just similar to it. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 19 May 2015, at 18:41, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. Opportunist fallacy. Fallacy my ass! Science demands evidence, if somebody claims they can cure cancer the claim is not enough, even a detailed description of how they intend to cure cancer is not enough, they must actually cure cancer. And so I don't want to hear any more about how you can make a calculation without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics, I want you to actually do it. Just do it and you've won the argument. Straw man fallacy. I thought it was the opportunist fallacy. Lets get our fallacies straight around here. That was straw man, like the next below. Nobody can do a physical computation out of a physical reality. Nobody has ever been able to perform a computation of ANY sort without matter that obeys the laws of physics and nobody has even come close, nobody has ever come within a billion light years of being able to do it. Do you think that some people might believe I ever disagree with this? That's a straw man, if I remind correctly Liz definition of it. The question is not about doing a computation, but about the existence of computation in the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality, which provably emulates all computation, It can't emulate a damn thing unless the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) exists and if it does then produce it and have it calculate 1+1. Do that and you will have won the argument. You keep asking me to change water in wine. What I can do, is explain the definition of emulation in arithmetic, and why we can say that the model (in the logician sense) satisfies propositions about computations and their relative implementations. I don't need to refer to anything physical, as I am not talking about physical implementation, but arithmetical implementations. Implementing a computation in arithmetic did not make people rich, but those who did it the first became famous like Gödel for the primitive recursive functions, Church, Kleene, others, on the partial recursive functions, etc. but obviously not in a physical, or locally reproductible way. Or to say the same thing with different words, not in a way that corresponds with reality, To physical reality? If you prove that a computation does not exist in the mathematical reality, you prove that it does not exist in the physical reality. The point is just that the classical (in the sense of of the Church thesis used in comp) theory of computation does not borrow physical principle, and UDA indeed will show that we have to extract the physical principle by a modality of self-reference. or to use yet different words, not in a way that isn't Bullshit and a complete waste of time. It is computer science. You confuse people by failing to appreciate the difference between computer science and physical computer science. Both are very interesting, and they are related, indeed that is what will be under scrutiny. Indeed the physical will emerge from those computations, already there in the block-mind or block-computer science reality. Then do so! Starting from pure mathematics tell us why it would be a logical absurdity for the proton to be anything other than 1836 times as massive as the electron and for the neutron to be 1842 times as massive as the electron. Explain what's so special about those two numbers, do that and you'll have won the argument and as I've said I will personally pay for your first class airline ticket to Stockholm for the ceremonies. I just formulate the problem, and provide the tools, and have derived (three) quantum logics playing some role around quanta and qualia, in a testable way, and confirmed by QM (but would have been refuted if physics was Newtonian). Effectively means in such a manner as to achieve a desired result, With CT, it means computably. It means a mechanical method, and nobody has ever made one single calculation using a non effective method, That is tautological, and you are again on the verge of straw man. in fact the ONLY thing anybody has ever produced with a non- effective method is randomness. You are more distracting than wrong. That is the sum total of non-effective method's accomplishments to date, the only thing we know for sure it can do. you abandon the excluded middle principle, which is in comp, I don't abandon the excluded middle Then you agree that (N, 0, +, *) satisfies the separation between true and false sentences, in a non effective way. and I don't care if it's in comp or not because comp bores me. Yet
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That was straw man First iteration. Nobody has ever been able to perform a computation of ANY sort without matter that obeys the laws of physics and nobody has even come close, nobody has ever come within a billion light years of being able to do it. Do you think that some people might believe I ever disagree with this? Yes. That's a straw man Second iteration. The question is not about doing a computation, but about the existence of computation in the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality, which provably emulates all computation, It can't emulate a damn thing unless the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) exists and if it does then produce it and have it calculate 1+1. Do that and you will have won the argument. You keep asking me to change water in wine. I keep asking for experimental evidence to backup the moonshine you're peddling, it's a little thing called the Scientific Method. I don't need to refer to anything physical, as I am not talking about physical implementation, Sounds like transubstantiation, physically it's bread and wine but *REALLY* it's the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And if you believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. You confuse Yeah yeah I confuse. Indeed the physical will emerge from those computations, already there in the block-mind or block-computer science reality. Then do so! Starting from pure mathematics tell us why it would be a logical absurdity for the proton to be anything other than 1836 times as massive as the electron and for the neutron to be 1842 times as massive as the electron. Explain what's so special about those two numbers, do that and you'll have won the argument and as I've said I will personally pay for your first class airline ticket to Stockholm for the ceremonies. I just formulate the problem, and provide the tools, and have derived (three) quantum logics playing some role around quanta and qualia To hell with qualia! Whenever you get stuck you start babbling about qualia. You say physics emerges from pure mathematics and logic so you should be able to tell me what's so special about the numbers 1836 and 1842 from a non-physical point of view. Effectively means in such a manner as to achieve a desired result, With CT, it means computably. It means a mechanical method, and nobody has ever made one single calculation using a non effective method, That is tautological Yes and all correct equations are too; the wonderful thing about tautologies is that they are always true. again on the verge of straw man. And the magic word is strawman! in fact the ONLY thing anybody has ever produced with a non-effective method is randomness. You are more distracting than wrong. Sorry I distracted you with reality. you confuse, Yeah yeah I confuse. and straw man repetitions. Speaking of repetitions [] 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 18 May 2015, at 18:46, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. Opportunist fallacy. Fallacy my ass! Science demands evidence, if somebody claims they can cure cancer the claim is not enough, even a detailed description of how they intend to cure cancer is not enough, they must actually cure cancer. And so I don't want to hear any more about how you can make a calculation without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics, I want you to actually do it. Just do it and you've won the argument. Straw man fallacy. Nobody can do a physical computation out of a physical reality. The question is not about doing a computation, but about the existence of computation in the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality, which provably emulates all computation, but obviously not in a physical, or locally reproductible way. Indeed the physical will emerge from those computations, already there in the block-mind or block-computer science reality. if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. The word run involves changes in physical quantities like position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these calculations on? No: run is defined mathematically, without any reference to physics. Yes, so I guess you retract your previous comment and now realize that you can't run all computations or run any computation at all without making use of the physical. ? ! The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false. We cannot separate them mechanically, but we can separate them mathematically, Wow that is wonderful news! Since you know how to separate truth from falsehood mathematically you know if Goldbach conjecture is in the set of all true statements or in the set of all false statements and thus you have won the argument. Ah but by the way, which is it? To separate mathematically does not mean to separate effectively. Effectively means in such a manner as to achieve a desired result, With CT, it means computably. so if you desire to separate all true statements from all false statements and can do it but not do it effectively then you can do it but you can not do it. Do think maybe just maybe there might be something a bit wrong with that? Then you defend intuitionism, and we are out of computationalism. I have explained that there is no possible effective way to separate the code of total and strictly partial program, but to have Church thesis, we need an enumeration of all (strictly or not) partial computable functions, which will mix the total and strictly partial functions in a non computable, non effective way. Actually, I gave you other arguments, but you have never answered them, so I am not sure all this is not, like in step 3, pure rhetorical hand waving. In this case, you abandon the excluded middle principle, which is in comp, by definition, as you need it to have the classical Church thesis. Most theorems in theoretical computer science are not constructive, like in the usual math, and in computer science many of them are provably necessarily non constructive (unlike the usual math where we don't know, in most case). 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 20 May 2015 at 04:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. Opportunist fallacy. Fallacy my ass! Science demands evidence, if somebody claims they can cure cancer the claim is not enough, even a detailed description of how they intend to cure cancer is not enough, they must actually cure cancer. And so I don't want to hear any more about how you can make a calculation without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics, I want you to actually do it. Just do it and you've won the argument. Straw man fallacy. I thought it was the opportunist fallacy. Lets get our fallacies straight around here. I wouldn't be too proud of being called out on multiple fallacies. Bruno's just pointing out that you aren't addressing the issue - which is true, as far as I can see. To paraphrase someone, all you need to do is to successfully address the issue, and you've won the argument. Nobody can do a physical computation out of a physical reality. Nobody has ever been able to perform a computation of ANY sort without matter that obeys the laws of physics and nobody has even come close, nobody has ever come within a billion light years of being able to do it. Yes, that is definitely a straw man. It's like saying there can't be laws of physics because no one can make them operate without using them, or maybe just shut up and calculate. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Tue, May 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. Opportunist fallacy. Fallacy my ass! Science demands evidence, if somebody claims they can cure cancer the claim is not enough, even a detailed description of how they intend to cure cancer is not enough, they must actually cure cancer. And so I don't want to hear any more about how you can make a calculation without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics, I want you to actually do it. Just do it and you've won the argument. Straw man fallacy. I thought it was the opportunist fallacy. Lets get our fallacies straight around here. Nobody can do a physical computation out of a physical reality. Nobody has ever been able to perform a computation of ANY sort without matter that obeys the laws of physics and nobody has even come close, nobody has ever come within a billion light years of being able to do it. The question is not about doing a computation, but about the existence of computation in the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality, which provably emulates all computation, It can't emulate a damn thing unless the block-mind offred by the (sigma_1) exists and if it does then produce it and have it calculate 1+1. Do that and you will have won the argument. but obviously not in a physical, or locally reproductible way. Or to say the same thing with different words, not in a way that corresponds with reality, or to use yet different words, not in a way that isn't Bullshit and a complete waste of time. Indeed the physical will emerge from those computations, already there in the block-mind or block-computer science reality. Then do so! Starting from pure mathematics tell us why it would be a logical absurdity for the proton to be anything other than 1836 times as massive as the electron and for the neutron to be 1842 times as massive as the electron. Explain what's so special about those two numbers, do that and you'll have won the argument and as I've said I will personally pay for your first class airline ticket to Stockholm for the ceremonies. Effectively means in such a manner as to achieve a desired result, With CT, it means computably. It means a mechanical method, and nobody has ever made one single calculation using a non effective method, in fact the ONLY thing anybody has ever produced with a non-effective method is randomness. That is the sum total of non-effective method's accomplishments to date, the only thing we know for sure it can do. you abandon the excluded middle principle, which is in comp, I don't abandon the excluded middle and I don't care if it's in comp or not because comp bores me. And don't tell me it's just short for computationalism because I know what computationalism is and whatever the hell comp is it's not that. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Mon, May 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. Opportunist fallacy. Fallacy my ass! Science demands evidence, if somebody claims they can cure cancer the claim is not enough, even a detailed description of how they intend to cure cancer is not enough, they must actually cure cancer. And so I don't want to hear any more about how you can make a calculation without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics, I want you to actually do it. Just do it and you've won the argument. if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. The word run involves changes in physical quantities like position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these calculations on? No: run is defined mathematically, without any reference to physics. Yes, so I guess you retract your previous comment and now realize that you can't run all computations or run any computation at all without making use of the physical. ? ! The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false. We cannot separate them mechanically, but we can separate them mathematically, Wow that is wonderful news! Since you know how to separate truth from falsehood mathematically you know if Goldbach conjecture is in the set of all true statements or in the set of all false statements and thus you have won the argument. Ah but by the way, which is it? To separate mathematically does not mean to separate effectively. Effectively means in such a manner as to achieve a desired result, so if you desire to separate all true statements from all false statements and can do it but not do it effectively then you can do it but you can not do it. Do think maybe just maybe there might be something a bit wrong with that? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 17 May 2015, at 22:26, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2015 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So what? A injection is a function and a function is a machine that MOVES from one element in a set to another and ASSOCIATES it with elements of another set. All these things involve change. A function is not a machine. A machine is a collection of parts that performs an action, and so is a function. Not in the sense relevant for the discussion. See the point above. I will give a name to that rhetroical trick, as you have use it quite often: the opportunist fallacy. There are a non enumerbale number of function from N to N, but only an enumerable number of digital machines. The set of all subsets of digital machines is non-enumerable. And if non enumerable stuff, like the Real Numbers, actually exist and you are allowed to use them then so am I. The point was just that function and sets are not machine. Even a set of machines is not a machine, a priori. I assume nothing, I know for a fact that NOBODY knows how to make a clockwork without using matter and the laws of physics, maybe someday somebody will figure it out but as of today NOBODY has the slightest idea of how to do it. Turing machine are not material clockwork but purely mathematical notion. And that is why NOBODY knows how to make a calculation on a Turing Machine Excellent. So you do admit that Turing machine are not physical object. That's was my only point, in that part of the explanation. But calculation, computation, by Turing machine, inherit that non- physicalness. or on anything else unless they implement their mathematical notions with matter that obeys the laws of physics. Maybe someday that state of affairs will change but that's how things are now. Implementation, calculations, ... are mathematical (indeed: even arithmetical) notions. I will probably come back on this. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus No you can not! Then not only Turing and Church were wrong, as they will both proves this. Don't tell me show me. It is long and technical, Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. Opportunist fallacy. I think you're talking Bullshit but it would be easy to prove me wrong, just make a Lambda Machine that makes no use of matter that obeys the laws of physics and make a calculation, any calculation with it. (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x) (lambda x x) = ... (example of a non stopping computation). I see static pixels on a LCD screen, I don't see the slightest sign that any computation has been made. You don't see the computation, because we never see mathematical notion, we grasp them, or not. That computation is a mathematical object. It can be described as an infnite sequence of (lambda x x)(lambda x x), I agree, it's a approximate DESCRIPTION of a real calculation. And the blueprints of a 747 are a approximate DESCRIPTION of an airplane, but those blueprints don't act like a flying carpet that will fly to to Tokyo if you sit on them. Right, but still opportunistic. All I see is that you try hard to not understand the point. Your remark are trivial, but fail to explain to me what is your issue. I can try to imagine some way to explain things to you, but I can also see that if you want miss the conclusion, even a bot can provide the non-answers that you provide to me. if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. The word run involves changes in physical quantities like position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these calculations on? No: run is defined mathematically, without any reference to physics. Yes, so I guess you retract your previous comment and now realize that you can't run all computations or run any computation at all without making use of the physical. ? You confuse [first iteration] Enough with the you confuse crap! Every post of yours contains a you confuse, put a little variety into your phrases. Don't tell to others what they have to write. I wiill use you confuse each time you do a confusion. The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false. We cannot separate them mechanically, but we can separate them mathematically, Wow that is wonderful news! Since you know how to separate truth from falsehood mathematically you know if Goldbach conjecture is in the set of all true statements or in the set of all false statements and thus you have won
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 16 May 2015 at 05:28, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 May 2015, at 23:49, LizR wrote: The basic idea is that if you can predict in advance what you will do, you can as well change your mind. Yes, that's analogous to the halting problem, I would say. Self-reference comes into both. But I am wary of talk about free will and responsibility because of their political use. Then I am wary to talk about anything. health, climate, energy, religion, etc. Yes, it's as well to be careful in all those areas. Make sure you know what you are talking about, because they can all be misused. As can the idea of Free Will, as illustrated satirically by the cartoon I mentioned. As in a cartoon I have on my wall (though not the one in front of me at the moment, unfortunately, so this is from memory)... A business-suited arm points accusingly at a baby. A speech bubble from the arm's owner, out of frame: YOU are going to make some bad decisions in your life. You will choose the wrong parents, the wrong socio-economic group, the wrong foster home. As a result you will be abused, drop out, become a delinquent, become drug-addicted, end up in prison... ...WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE? Simple. I will take responsibility when you will give my responsibility back. That's the point, yes. Political policies and social institutions that remove freedoms from some part of the population are justified by the oppressors using the idea that the victims are somehow responsible for their lack of freedom. This is a misuse of the idea of free will - making it out to be some magical thing that means anyone can succeed despite being oppressed, marginalised, deprived, uneducated, given no opportunities, kept poor etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 16 May 2015 at 08:07, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Enough with the you confuse crap! Every post of yours contains a you confuse, put a little variety into your phrases. Pot and kettle, to say the least. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 12-May-2015, at 4:00 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Russel wrote: Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. then: My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. The term 'nondeterministic' (leading to 'random?') is a nono in my views (and I do not argue for their correctness, only for their LIMITED agnostic nature). Relations (what are they?) influence each other, I think so does the Laplace daemon (I never met this guy) so in the churnings of the existence (Nature?) nothing comes un-influenced (randomly, or in a CHAOTIC un-ruliness). I consider chaos the outcome of orderly influences including (our) unknown - even (for us) unknowable factors in the 'Everything' (Nature, whatever). Furthermore: if chaos is ubiquitous, or: if random prevails unrestrained, we would have no math-phys laws to observe (consider 2+2=375, or 56831) and e.g. Ohm's law would be unfollowable etc. etc. etc. So far I did not meet an acceptable regulation about WHERE does the potential of random, or chaos prevail and WHERE not? It cannot be a convenience rule, like: it exists there, and ONLY there, where we like it and it does not disturb our natural sciences/mathematics etc. A 'deterministic setting' IMO is the outcome of sometimes controversial trends from diverse influencing tendencies - ALL OF THEM (known and unknown). Whatever 'emerges' is entailed by some origins and influences and it is only our ignorance that calls it 'random', 'chaos', or 'nondeterministic change' etc. etc. In many cases we cannot predict what will happen, because our insight is limited. 'Free will' is a good cop-out, the gods can even punish the 'willer'. This might be of interest: Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021612 And my understanding of it: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/divine-will-and-human-free-will.html Samiya Regards John Mikes On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:06:57PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell: you wrote (among many many others): *...No free will = deterministic behaviour... * I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as Quite right. I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour. (= means entailed by, not ≤). Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So what? A injection is a function and a function is a machine that MOVES from one element in a set to another and ASSOCIATES it with elements of another set. All these things involve change. A function is not a machine. A machine is a collection of parts that performs an action, and so is a function. There are a non enumerbale number of function from N to N, but only an enumerable number of digital machines. The set of all subsets of digital machines is non-enumerable. And if non enumerable stuff, like the Real Numbers, actually exist and you are allowed to use them then so am I. I assume nothing, I know for a fact that NOBODY knows how to make a clockwork without using matter and the laws of physics, maybe someday somebody will figure it out but as of today NOBODY has the slightest idea of how to do it. Turing machine are not material clockwork but purely mathematical notion. And that is why NOBODY knows how to make a calculation on a Turing Machine or on anything else unless they implement their mathematical notions with matter that obeys the laws of physics. Maybe someday that state of affairs will change but that's how things are now. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus No you can not! Then not only Turing and Church were wrong, as they will both proves this. Don't tell me show me. It is long and technical, Well then let's make this simple, just use your patented way to make calculations without using matter or energy or any of the laws of physics and tell me what the factors of 3*2^916773 +1 and 19249 × 2^13018586 + 1 are. I think you're talking Bullshit but it would be easy to prove me wrong, just make a Lambda Machine that makes no use of matter that obeys the laws of physics and make a calculation, any calculation with it. (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = ... (example of a non stopping computation). I see static pixels on a LCD screen, I don't see the slightest sign that any computation has been made. That computation is a mathematical object. It can be described as an infnite sequence of (lambda x x)(lambda x x), I agree, it's a approximate DESCRIPTION of a real calculation. And the blueprints of a 747 are a approximate DESCRIPTION of an airplane, but those blueprints don't act like a flying carpet that will fly to to Tokyo if you sit on them. if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. The word run involves changes in physical quantities like position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these calculations on? No: run is defined mathematically, without any reference to physics. Yes, so I guess you retract your previous comment and now realize that you can't run all computations or run any computation at all without making use of the physical. You confuse [first iteration] Enough with the you confuse crap! Every post of yours contains a you confuse, put a little variety into your phrases. The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false. We cannot separate them mechanically, but we can separate them mathematically, Wow that is wonderful news! Since you know how to separate truth from falsehood mathematically you know if Goldbach conjecture is in the set of all true statements or in the set of all false statements and thus you have won the argument. Ah but by the way, which is it? You confuse [second iteration] Enough with the you confuse crap! Every post of yours contains a you confuse [2 this time], put a little variety into your phrases. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 15 May 2015, at 22:07, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Why would Turing machine obeys the laws of physics? Because a Turing Machine like all machines involves change. The change are injection in N. So what? A injection is a function and a function is a machine that MOVES from one element in a set to another and ASSOCIATES it with elements of another set. All these things involve change. A function is not a machine. There are a non enumerbale number of function from N to N, but only an enumerable number of digital machines. and determine if it is white or black, and a clockwork must determine if it should change the color of that cell or not, and a clockwork must determine if it should move the tape one space to the right or one space to the left or just stop. And nobody knows how to make clockwork without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Nobody, absolutely nobody. Oh, so you do assume primitive matter. I assume nothing, I know for a fact that NOBODY knows how to make a clockwork without using matter and the laws of physics, maybe someday somebody will figure it out but as of today NOBODY has the slightest idea of how to do it. Turing machine are not material clockwork but purely mathematical notion. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus No you can not! Then not only Turing and Church were wrong, as they will both proves this. Don't tell me show me. It is long and technical, and you have the tone of the one decided to not change its mind, when you can consult any textbook, and actually, it is already in the basic paper of Turing, that you refer too. It is a result quite standard in the field. I think you're talking Bullshit but it would be easy to prove me wrong, just make a Lambda Machine that makes no use of matter that obeys the laws of physics and make a calculation, any calculation with it. (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x)(lambda x x) = (lambda x x) (lambda x x) = ... (example of a non stopping computation). That computation is a mathematical object. It can be described as an infnite sequence of (lambda x x)(lambda x x), each resulting from the substitution of x in (lambda x x) by the argument (lambda x x). Do that and you will have not only won the argument but I will personally buy your airline ticket to Stockholm for your Nobel Prize ceremony. No, whatever I do, you will use hand waving to not recognize it. You confuse [...] Enough with the you confuse crap! Every post of yours contains a you confuse, put a little variety into your phrases. if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. The word run involves changes in physical quantities like position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these calculations on? No: run is defined mathematically, without any reference to physics. Just buy the davis book, and red the old original paper. Nothing can divide all arithmetical truth from all arithmetical falsehoods. Nothing can do it including arithmetic. Sorry Arithmetical truth does it, trivially. What a steaming pile of Bullshit. See Epstein Carnielli chapter 22. Or just take a look on Gödel's 1931 paper. Or see the book by Matiyasevic, where it is show how diophantine polynomial can simulate a Turing machine. You just dismiss a whole branch of math. I dismiss junk science. You just show that you have no idea of computer science. you are a comp1 believer, and comp is comp1. Then it implies comp2 Oh for christ sake! As if comp wasn't bad enough now we have comp1 and comp2 and I'm not even going to ask what the hell this new form of babytalk is supposed to mean, assuming it means anything at all. See the recent Post by Liz who suggested that difference. you invoke a God for which we have no evidence. Science is about evidence and what we have ZERO evidence of is anybody making one single calculation without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Let me repeat that, we have zero evidence, zip nada zilch goose egg. You confuse a priori computation in the mathematical sense with the physical implementation of computation. We know since a long time that computations are also implemented (non physically of course) in a tiny part of arithmetic (the sigma_1 part). Amen (you are a good Aristotelian Theologian). Be creative think of a new insult, the one about me being secretly religious and being an admirer of Aristotle is getting old. the set of true sentences is well defined, The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false. We cannot separate them mechanically, but we can separate them mathematically, and
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Fri, May 15, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: forget about sdtatistical! *NO. * Statistics is 'counting WITHIN arbitrary (and that can mean: presently knowable) limitations. Exceed those and your statistics is hogwash. *Then don't exceed those limits*. Try the infinite (I know you cannot) and you find 'equal' %-s for everything. Random, not random. Chaotic - ordered. Entropic or not. Emergent, or fully already known. Such thinking may not be too flattering to our ego, but that is what we are: stupid ingredients in a fraction of of an unfatomable Everything. I call it (partially) agnostic - a nicer word for ignorant. *You seem to know a lot and be very certain of yourself, how did you come into possession of all this information? * * 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Thu, May 14, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: How come we observe physical laws exempt from random occurrences? That's easy if the physical laws are statistical. For example a law might say that under circumstance X outcome Y will happen 80% of the time and outcome Z 20%. And even if the outcome is produced by completely random variables (events without causes) they will still tend to form a predictable bell shaped curve, and the more outcomes there are the closer the graph will resemble that precisely defined bell shaped curve. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Laplace didn't know that calculation takes energy and produces entropy, Sure, so we now know the daemon cannot be physical. If the daemon isn't physical then, at least as far as we know, the daemon can't do anything including calculate or observe or think. he thought deterministic was the same as predictable and it isn't. How on earth do you expect the poor daemon to know if a program to find the first even integer greater than 2 that is not the sum of two prime numbers and then stop will ever stop if Goldbach is true but has no proof?? Deterministic means you can predict what will happen at some given time t_1 after the origin. Only if the prediction itself does not change the state of the system as would happen if you told Og what fork in the road ahead you thought he would end up going down. And you might be making your prediction a long time after t_1 already occurred because there might not be a shortcut so the quickest way to find out what the system will do is to just watch it and see. And you'd still have no idea what will happen at time t_2. So you can just run the program for t_1 seconds, and it will tell you whether the proigram has halted by that time or not. If you want to actually predict the outcome, use a 10x faster computer. And if you find out that the program is still running at time t_10 that information will be of no help whatsoever in answering my question, will the program ever stop? To determine the outcome of the program in the above circumstance, you need a more powerful beast than Laplace's daemon - it would need to be a Halting Oracle - ie someone who knows the decimal expansion of Chaitin's Omega to say a few thousand decimal places. And both mathematics and physics agree that there is no way that anyone or ANYTHING can ever know what Chaitin's Omega is because its digits are truly random. And even if you were familiar with the number through pure chance there is no way you'd know that it was Chaitin's Omega, to you it would just seem to be a string of random digits like so many others. Fantasising what would happen if you knew the value of Chaitin's Omega and knew it was Chaitin's Omega is like asking what things would be like if 2+2=5. But a Halting Oracle can never predict the outcome of FPI, Because even a Halting Oracle can not answer a gibberish question. The daemon must keep his prediction of Og's behavior secret from Og or lie about what he really thinks Og will do. If Og is DETERMINED to do the opposite of whatever the daemon predicts he will do and Og is told what the prediction is then the daemon's prediction will never be correct. What does DETERMINED mean here? Deterministic clockwork. Right - so you're setting up a logical contradiction. Yes. You haven't really proved anything by it, other than Laplace daemons cannot influence the system they study. The daemon would have no difficulty influencing the system, but if he does his predictions will be wrong. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015, at 23:49, LizR wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 02:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 May 2015, at 03:20, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place. Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will? I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. I was being a bit flippant. I think the definition that makes sense is being unable to predict someone's actions, possibly for deep Halting-problem-type reasons. I made all that precise in Conscience et Mécanisme. the basic idea is already in Popper, and used by Good to explain relation between free-will and relative speed computation. The basic idea is that if you can predict in advance what you will do, you can as well change your mind. But I am wary of talk about free will and responsibility because of their political use. Then I am wary to talk about anything. health, climate, energy, religion, etc. As in a cartoon I have on my wall (though not the one in front of me at the moment, unfortunately, so this is from memory)... A business-suited arm points accusingly at a baby. A speech bubble from the arm's owner, out of frame: YOU are going to make some bad decisions in your life. You will choose the wrong parents, the wrong socio-economic group, the wrong foster home. As a result you will be abused, drop out, become a delinquent, become drug-addicted, end up in prison... ...WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE? Simple. I will take responsibility when you will give my responsibility back. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
JohnC: forget about sdtatistical! Statistics is 'counting WITHIN arbitrary (and that can mean: presently knowable) limitations. Exceed those and your statistics is hogwash. Try the infinite (I know you cannot) and you find 'equal' %-s for everything. Random, not random. Chaotic - ordered. Entropic or not. Emergent, or fully already known. Such thinking may not be too flattering to our ego, but that is what we are: stupid ingredients in a fraction of of an unfatomable Everything. I call it (partially) agnostic - a nicer word for ignorant. JohnM On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:47 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: How come we observe physical laws exempt from random occurrences? That's easy if the physical laws are statistical. For example a law might say that under circumstance X outcome Y will happen 80% of the time and outcome Z 20%. And even if the outcome is produced by completely random variables (events without causes) they will still tend to form a predictable bell shaped curve, and the more outcomes there are the closer the graph will resemble that precisely defined bell shaped curve. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Fri, May 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Why would Turing machine obeys the laws of physics? Because a Turing Machine like all machines involves change. The change are injection in N. So what? A injection is a function and a function is a machine that MOVES from one element in a set to another and ASSOCIATES it with elements of another set. All these things involve change. and determine if it is white or black, and a clockwork must determine if it should change the color of that cell or not, and a clockwork must determine if it should move the tape one space to the right or one space to the left or just stop. And nobody knows how to make clockwork without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Nobody, absolutely nobody. Oh, so you do assume primitive matter. I assume nothing, I know for a fact that NOBODY knows how to make a clockwork without using matter and the laws of physics, maybe someday somebody will figure it out but as of today NOBODY has the slightest idea of how to do it. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus No you can not! Then not only Turing and Church were wrong, as they will both proves this. Don't tell me show me. I think you're talking Bullshit but it would be easy to prove me wrong, just make a Lambda Machine that makes no use of matter that obeys the laws of physics and make a calculation, any calculation with it. Do that and you will have not only won the argument but I will personally buy your airline ticket to Stockholm for your Nobel Prize ceremony. You confuse [...] Enough with the you confuse crap! Every post of yours contains a you confuse, put a little variety into your phrases. if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. The word run involves changes in physical quantities like position and time. And what sort of thing are you running these calculations on? Nothing can divide all arithmetical truth from all arithmetical falsehoods. Nothing can do it including arithmetic. Sorry Arithmetical truth does it, trivially. What a steaming pile of Bullshit. You just dismiss a whole branch of math. I dismiss junk science. you are a comp1 believer, and comp is comp1. Then it implies comp2 Oh for christ sake! As if comp wasn't bad enough now we have comp1 and comp2 and I'm not even going to ask what the hell this new form of babytalk is supposed to mean, assuming it means anything at all. you invoke a God for which we have no evidence. Science is about evidence and what we have ZERO evidence of is anybody making one single calculation without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Let me repeat that, we have zero evidence, zip nada zilch goose egg. Amen (you are a good Aristotelian Theologian). Be creative think of a new insult, the one about me being secretly religious and being an admirer of Aristotle is getting old. the set of true sentences is well defined, The set of all true statements is contained within the set of all statements, the trick is to separate the true from the false. I agree that the set of all true statements and no false statements has a definition that is not gibberish, but we know that nothing can produce such a set. The integer that is equal to 2+2 but is not equal to 4 is also well defined, but nothing can produce that integer either. in general there is no way to determine which statements it is possible to prove to be right or wrong and which statements you can not. Gödel and Post provided a constructive way to do exactly this. So you think Turing was wrong when he claimed that he proved the Entscheidungsproblem had no general solution?? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015, at 22:04, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Why would Turing machine obeys the laws of physics? Because a Turing Machine like all machines involves change. The change are injection in N. A clockwork must read a cell on a tape made of matter Buy the Davis Book 1964, in the cheap paperback from Dover. and determine if it is white or black, and a clockwork must determine if it should change the color of that cell or not, and a clockwork must determine if it should move the tape one space to the right or one space to the left or just stop. And nobody knows how to make clockwork without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Nobody, absolutely nobody. Oh, so you do assume primitive matter. But you are just wrong on what is a Turing machine. Turing makes it look material for reason of pedagogy. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus No you can not! Then not only Turing and Church were wrong, as they will both proves this. You can find the proofs, or similar, in any textbooks in computer science. All known universal systems have been proved to implement all known universal systems. And with CT you can suppressed the known. The word implement means to put a plan into effect Not in computer science. It means you can write a translator of one universal system in another one, or you can write an interpreter of one language in another one. and Lambda calculus or any other type of ink on paper can not do that. Lambda calculus, like number theory, has no relationship with ink and paper. You can find books about Lambda calculus that describe how Turing Machines operate but it's just a description, No. It is either compilation or interpretation, as universal entities can do. You confuse computer science and physical computer science. Those are different, and the second use the basic definition of the first, up to now. to actually make a Turing Machine as opposed to just talking about one, you'll need matter and the laws of physics. A book about Lambda calculus or about anything else can't calculate diddly squat. You can implement them in Fortran, in Algol, Not unless you have a computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics to run those Fortran or Algol programs on. No, if you agree that 2+2=4, and if you use the standard definition, then you can prove that a tiny part of the standard model of arithmetic run all computations. nearly all numbers are non computable I told you that by numbers I mean integers, what you call number here are non computable functions. And what you call non computable functions Turing himself called non computable numbers in the very 1936 paper that introduced the concept that would later be called a Turing Machine. OK, Turing made two pedagogical mistakes, relatively to the question treated here. Read any of his other paper, in fact it hows the relative vice-versa implementation of lambda and his machine formalism in that basic paper. Note that his definition of computable real numbers is wrong (as he himself realized, and changed later. There is no Church-thesis for the notion of real number computable. If we are machine, reality is not a machine, and with comp physics is an important part of that reality If by mathematics you mean tha arithmetical truth, then mathematics knows the arithmetical truth. Nothing can divide all arithmetical truth from all arithmetical falsehoods. Nothing can do it including arithmetic. Sorry Arithmetical truth does it, trivially. Then that reality can have his complexity measured, and their are degrees of unsolvability. You just dismiss a whole branch of math. At this stage, a plea for intuitionism is inadequate. It implies non-comp (strictly speaking). I don't care, I'm not interested in comp. But you are a comp1 believer, and comp is comp1. Then it implies comp2, which you fake to not understand, or you just play the advocate's devil. Ink on paper is in those textbooks, there is no evidence that any book has ever been able to calculate anything, not even 1+1. You want to fly across the Pacific Ocean on the blueprints of a 747 and it just doesn't work. Grave confusion of level. Maybe on some level our entire universe is just a simulation program written in Fortran, but if it is as far as we know that program is running on a computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, How do you know that? Especially knowing than the the sigma_1 tiny part of the arithmetical truth realizes all computations, even all quantum computations. We don't know that, and have no evidence, and even clues that the physical universe might be the border of something else. In other words those computer textbooks provide simplified and approximated descriptions of how real computers
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote: Bruno concluded: Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place. Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will? I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. IMO neither 'free will', nor 'random' make comon sense. Both (and CHAOS as well) are deterministic products of infinite many factors beyond our mental limits - and control. I tried to address such views to Russell, but he rejected my post as 'not having followed my rabbitting at all'. I wonder why 'decision making' would preferred to be called FREE will? Yes, will is a better term. Free-will is will in the situation that you are not in jail, or stuck in a lift. In the world of infinite complexities in more-or-less unfollowable relations the determining factor of the composite 'pressure' to influence our decision is indeed a composite of Everything affecting our flexible 'mind' into some WILL. About 'random'? I asked many times what ruling exempts the arithmetical 2 + 2 = 4 from a randomity when in Nature ANYTHING(?) can go random? Because 2+2=4 is independent of nature. It does not assume nature. On the SK-planet, they learn the numbers as curiousity, and some take pleasure in proving 2+2=4 from Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz), with reasonable definitions. How come we observe physical laws exempt from random occurrences? That is the question that the hypothesis of computationalism can make precise. What happened to CHAOS when enlightenment disclosed some origins and procedures explaining 'chaotic' unknowables of the past? All good questions! Best, Bruno On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 May 2015, at 03:20, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place. Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will? I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. (Perhaps the atom was inside their brain, and its decay just happened to tip the balance of brain chemicals enough that the final decision was in favour of tea rather than coffee... or perhaps the person decided to decide which drink to have on the basis of a reading from a Geiger counter... either way, in this particular case human FW puts them in a bit of a Schroedinger's cat siutation...) Which in my opinion illustrate well that both self-duplication and self-superposition have no role in free -will. 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 post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015, at 03:20, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place. Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will? I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. (Perhaps the atom was inside their brain, and its decay just happened to tip the balance of brain chemicals enough that the final decision was in favour of tea rather than coffee... or perhaps the person decided to decide which drink to have on the basis of a reading from a Geiger counter... either way, in this particular case human FW puts them in a bit of a Schroedinger's cat siutation...) Which in my opinion illustrate well that both self-duplication and self-superposition have no role in free -will. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 13 May 2015, at 19:46, John Clark wrote: The only other meaning of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is the inability to always know what we will do next before we do it even in an unchanging environment, That is, roughly, the modern definition, which is neutral on the origin of the non-knowledgeability. But with computationalism, it can be shown that it is a Turing-Gödel like non determinacy, and note the comp FPI, nor the quantum FPI. but almost nobody uses that meaning There are so much people who use that meaning, that it has a name: the compatibilistic theory of free will (compatible with string determinacy). so all that remains is the sound that chunks of meat make when they flap together. Two mistakes here. Even if only one person grasp something, it does not mean it is uninteresting (if not, all new discoveries would be abandoned at the start). Then it is just false that few people uses that definition, in this list, and out of this list. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Wed, May 13, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Why would Turing machine obeys the laws of physics? Because a Turing Machine like all machines involves change. A clockwork must read a cell on a tape made of matter and determine if it is white or black, and a clockwork must determine if it should change the color of that cell or not, and a clockwork must determine if it should move the tape one space to the right or one space to the left or just stop. And nobody knows how to make clockwork without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Nobody, absolutely nobody. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus No you can not! The word implement means to put a plan into effect and Lambda calculus or any other type of ink on paper can not do that. You can find books about Lambda calculus that describe how Turing Machines operate but it's just a description, to actually make a Turing Machine as opposed to just talking about one, you'll need matter and the laws of physics. A book about Lambda calculus or about anything else can't calculate diddly squat. You can implement them in Fortran, in Algol, Not unless you have a computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics to run those Fortran or Algol programs on. nearly all numbers are non computable I told you that by numbers I mean integers, what you call number here are non computable functions. And what you call non computable functions Turing himself called non computable numbers in the very 1936 paper that introduced the concept that would later be called a Turing Machine. If we are machine, reality is not a machine, and with comp physics is an important part of that reality If by mathematics you mean tha arithmetical truth, then mathematics knows the arithmetical truth. Nothing can divide all arithmetical truth from all arithmetical falsehoods. Nothing can do it including arithmetic. At this stage, a plea for intuitionism is inadequate. It implies non-comp (strictly speaking). I don't care, I'm not interested in comp. Ink on paper is in those textbooks, there is no evidence that any book has ever been able to calculate anything, not even 1+1. You want to fly across the Pacific Ocean on the blueprints of a 747 and it just doesn't work. Grave confusion of level. Maybe on some level our entire universe is just a simulation program written in Fortran, but if it is as far as we know that program is running on a computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, sigh burp In other words those computer textbooks provide simplified and approximated descriptions of how real computers operate. They described fundamental mathematical object which have been discovered by mathematician working in the foundation of mathematics Yes exactly, those textbooks DESCRIBE a Turing Machine, and the blueprints of a 747 DESCRIBE that airplane, but you can't fly to Tokyo on a description. physical computation is defined by the ability by nature to emulate (approximatively) those mathematical objects. Mathematical computational objects are defined by their ability to approximate physical computational objects. But the physical reality is used only for that relative manifestation, If so then physics can do something mathematics can not, make a calculation that has a relationship with our world. Physics must have some secret sauce that mathematics does not. Only if computationalism is false, Sounding rather theological you just said that physical reality is needed for some manifestations, so physics must have something mathematics does not. QED. Godel said there are an infinite number of statements that are true (so you can never find a counterexample to prove it wrong) ? ! If Goldbach's conjecture is in that second category (and if it isn't there are an infinite number of similar statements that are) then mathematicians could spend eternity looking (unsuccessfully) for a way to prove that Goldbach's conjecture is true, and spend an infinite number of years building ever faster computers looking (unsuccessfully) for an even integer that is not the sum of two prime numbers to prove that Goldbach's conjecture is false. So after an infinite amount of work you'd be no wiser about the truth or falsehood of Goldbach's Conjecture than you are right now. But I am pretty sure, to tell you my opinion, that the conjecture is either true or false. I accept that Goldbach is either true or false, Godel and Turing did too, but the question is does anything, ANYTHING, know if it is true or not. Godel and Turing say not necessarily, and even if Goldbach is provable or unprovable there are an infinite number of similar statements that are not. mathematicians have studied the difference between truth and proofs, The difference is not all true statements have a proof, and in general there is no way to determine which statements it is possible to
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Both Og and the daemon are deterministic but even if we ignore chaos deterministic is not the same as predictable. A very simple program can be written to look for the first even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of 2 primes and then stop, the program is 100% deterministic but nobody has been able to predict if it will ever stop or not, and even worse Turing tells us that there is a chance nobody will even ever be able to predict that someday somebody will be able to predict if it will stop or not. Are you arguing that Laplace's daemon is impossible? Yes. Laplace didn't know that calculation takes energy and produces entropy, and he thought deterministic was the same as predictable and it isn't. How on earth do you expect the poor daemon to know if a program to find the first even integer greater than 2 that is not the sum of two prime numbers and then stop will ever stop if Goldbach is true but has no proof?? That is incorrect it matters a great deal. The daemon must keep his prediction of Og's behavior secret from Og or lie about what he really thinks Og will do. If Og is DETERMINED to do the opposite of whatever the daemon predicts he will do and Og is told what the prediction is then the daemon's prediction will never be correct. What does DETERMINED mean here? Deterministic clockwork. Sounds an awful lot like Og's free will. Tell me what free will means and I'll tell you if that sounds like it. If no daemon can predict what Og will do in this deterministic system [...] Forget Og, no daemon can predict what light a simple electronic box will turn on if it's rigged to turn on red if the daemon says green and turn on green if the daemon says red. The daemon must keep his prediction secret. I don't believe free will is possible in a deterministic universe. Tell me what free will means and I'll tell you if I agree or not. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:40 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The only other meaning of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is the inability to always know what we will do next before we do it even in an unchanging environment, but almost nobody uses that meaning so all that remains is the sound that chunks of meat make when they flap together. I agree with you on this one. FW as the inability to know what someone will do next (including yourself) Someone else could know exactly what you are going to do next, but the important thing is that you do not. And you may know when the birdy will pop out of the cuckoo clock but the birdy doesn't so the birdy has free will. Hey I didn't say the definition was profound just that it wasn't gibberish. leads to the idea that someone born poor, who is as a result uneducated and can only get menial jobs (say) is somehow responsible for their position in society because they've failed in some way, and they are then blamed They have certainly failed but It's not a question of blame or punishment . If you like me think that it's a bad thing that poor people are uneducated then the solution is to educate them. John K Clark (particularly by people of a right wing persuasion) for something theyhad no control over. So it's actually a dangerous notion politically, and not just philosophically meaningless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 15 May 2015 at 02:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 May 2015, at 03:20, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place. Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will? I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. I was being a bit flippant. I think the definition that makes sense is being unable to predict someone's actions, possibly for deep Halting-problem-type reasons. But I am wary of talk about free will and responsibility because of their political use. As in a cartoon I have on my wall (though not the one in front of me at the moment, unfortunately, so this is from memory)... A business-suited arm points accusingly at a baby. A speech bubble from the arm's owner, out of frame: YOU are going to make some bad decisions in your life. You will choose the wrong parents, the wrong socio-economic group, the wrong foster home. As a result you will be abused, drop out, become a delinquent, become drug-addicted, end up in prison... ...WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Bruno concluded: *Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place.* *Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will?* *I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. * IMO neither 'free will', nor 'random' make comon sense. Both (and CHAOS as well) are deterministic products of infinite many factors beyond our mental limits - and control. I tried to address such views to Russell, but he rejected my post as 'not having followed my rabbitting at all'. I wonder why 'decision making' would preferred to be called FREE will? In the world of infinite complexities in more-or-less unfollowable relations the determining factor of the composite 'pressure' to influence our decision is indeed a composite of Everything affecting our flexible 'mind' into some WILL. About 'random'? I asked many times what ruling exempts the arithmetical 2 + 2 = 4 from a randomity when in Nature ANYTHING(?) can go random? How come we observe physical laws exempt from random occurrences? What happened to CHAOS when enlightenment disclosed some origins and procedures explaining 'chaotic' unknowables of the past? Regards John Mikes On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 May 2015, at 03:20, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? Only if you define free-will by random, but frankly, it seems that random is the complete opposite of free-will. If you choose randomly, it means you abandon your will to chance. It means you let chance doing the decision at your place. Imagine that I give you the liberty to go either in Hell or in Paradise, with your own free will. Then, as you tell me that free will = random, I can throw the coin for you, and ... Hell. Would say that in that case you are going to hell by your own free will? I think free will require determinacy, at least some amount so as being able to do some planning. (Perhaps the atom was inside their brain, and its decay just happened to tip the balance of brain chemicals enough that the final decision was in favour of tea rather than coffee... or perhaps the person decided to decide which drink to have on the basis of a reading from a Geiger counter... either way, in this particular case human FW puts them in a bit of a Schroedinger's cat siutation...) Which in my opinion illustrate well that both self-duplication and self-superposition have no role in free -will. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 04:47:21PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Both Og and the daemon are deterministic but even if we ignore chaos deterministic is not the same as predictable. A very simple program can be written to look for the first even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of 2 primes and then stop, the program is 100% deterministic but nobody has been able to predict if it will ever stop or not, and even worse Turing tells us that there is a chance nobody will even ever be able to predict that someday somebody will be able to predict if it will stop or not. Are you arguing that Laplace's daemon is impossible? Yes. Laplace didn't know that calculation takes energy and produces entropy, Sure, so we now know the daemon cannot be physical. I'm not sure that Laplace thought they had to be physical to make his non-physical thought experiments go through though. After all, even though Laplace made his famous quip to Napoleon, most people at the time believed in a non-physical God person. and he thought deterministic was the same as predictable and it isn't. How on earth do you expect the poor daemon to know if a program to find the first even integer greater than 2 that is not the sum of two prime numbers and then stop will ever stop if Goldbach is true but has no proof?? Deterministic means you can predict what will happen at some given time t_1 after the origin. So you can just run the program for t_1 seconds, and it will tell you whether the proigram has halted by that time or not. If you want to actually predict the outcome, use a 10x faster computer. To determine the outcome of the program in the above circumstance, you need a more powerful beast than Laplace's daemon - it would need to be a Halting Oracle - ie someone who knows the decimal expansion of Chaitin's Omega to say a few thousand decimal places. But a Halting Oracle can never predict the outcome of FPI, the latter is truly random. That is incorrect it matters a great deal. The daemon must keep his prediction of Og's behavior secret from Og or lie about what he really thinks Og will do. If Og is DETERMINED to do the opposite of whatever the daemon predicts he will do and Og is told what the prediction is then the daemon's prediction will never be correct. What does DETERMINED mean here? Deterministic clockwork. Right - so you're setting up a logical contradiction. You haven't really proved anything by it, other than Laplace daemons cannot influence the system they study. You haven't shown the impossibility of Laplace daemons, for example. You may have shown the impossibility of Maxwell's daemon though, although I suspect Slizard got there some time ago... but I've kind of lost interest already, this is so much of a digression already, which was about demonstrating a real distinction between FPI and dynamical chaos. Sounds an awful lot like Og's free will. Determined in your sentence was clearly ambiguous. I was interpreting it as meaning that Og was resolute, not that It is determined that Og does -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 15 May 2015 at 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Sure, so we now know the daemon cannot be physical. I'm not sure that Laplace thought they had to be physical to make his non-physical thought experiments go through though. After all, even though Laplace made his famous quip to Napoleon, most people at the time believed in a non-physical God person. Also, I think his quip has been somewhat exaggerrated. (I looked it up recently for crossword setting purposes, I think, and was disappointed to discover it was apocryphal). At least according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015 at 09:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 05:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: The only other meaning of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is the inability to always know what we will do next before we do it even in an unchanging environment, but almost nobody uses that meaning so all that remains is the sound that chunks of meat make when they flap together. I agree with you on this one. FW as the inability to know what someone will do next (including yourself) seems the only meaningful definition. In fact the suggestion that it has some greater meaning leads to the idea that someone born poor, who is as a result uneducated and can only get menial jobs (say) is somehow responsible for their position in society because they've failed in some way, and they are then blamed (particularly by people of a right wing persuasion) for something theyhad no control over. So it's actually a dangerous notion politically, and not just philosophically meaningless. No-one's ever to blame for anything. If they did it because that's the way their brain is it's not their fault, and if they did it due to irreducible randomness it's not their fault. However, punishment and reward can be used to guide behaviour in desirable directions, whether it is driven by determinism or randomness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015 at 05:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: The only other meaning of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is the inability to always know what we will do next before we do it even in an unchanging environment, but almost nobody uses that meaning so all that remains is the sound that chunks of meat make when they flap together. I agree with you on this one. FW as the inability to know what someone will do next (including yourself) seems the only meaningful definition. In fact the suggestion that it has some greater meaning leads to the idea that someone born poor, who is as a result uneducated and can only get menial jobs (say) is somehow responsible for their position in society because they've failed in some way, and they are then blamed (particularly by people of a right wing persuasion) for something theyhad no control over. So it's actually a dangerous notion politically, and not just philosophically meaningless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. And if you want to argue that most physicists are wrong when they say that some events have no cause that's fine too, but if nothing is random then nothing is non-rational and so what does free will mean? Sure. I don't argue that, however. I don't normally engage in discussions about free will, Well... if you're going to use the term you'd better be prepared to discuss what the hell it's supposed to mean. I have many times. I will continue to use the term when appropriate, such as discussing the irony of how predictions of a system containing free-willed agents will influence the system, rendering the prediction mute. But I won't bother wasting my time when someone obstinately wants the term to mean something incoherent, or nothing at all. as too many people have nonsensical notions of what it is, including the notion that it just a meaningless sound made be flapping chunks of meat together. The only other meaning of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is the inability to always know what we will do next before we do it even in an unchanging environment, but almost nobody uses that meaning so all Well it appears that I am such a nobody then, except that I would also restrict it to mean that _no_ possible agent can predict what one will do next, not just that one doesn't know. But I'm prepared to accept the former more generalised meaning for the sake of an argument. that remains is the sound that chunks of meat make when they flap together. if the daemon tells Og what his prediction of Og's behavior will be the situation is not deterministic, or at least it can not be determined by the daemon, for that you'd need a mega-daemon. And then things iterate. No you don't. Because the system is deterministic (after all the whole premiss of this thread of conversation is dynamical chaos, which is a deterministic system), Both Og and the daemon are deterministic but even if we ignore chaos deterministic is not the same as predictable. A very simple program can be written to look for the first even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of 2 primes and then stop, the program is 100% deterministic but nobody has been able to predict if it will ever stop or not, and even worse Turing tells us that there is a chance nobody will even ever be able to predict that someday somebody will be able to predict if it will stop or not. Are you arguing that Laplace's daemon is impossible? it doesn't matter what the daemon tells Og, Og will do what he was going to do anyway, as he is deterministic, That is incorrect it matters a great deal. The daemon must keep his prediction of Og's behavior secret from Og or lie about what he really thinks Og will do. If Og is DETERMINED to do the opposite of whatever the daemon predicts he will do and Og is told what the prediction is then the daemon's prediction will never be correct. What does DETERMINED mean here? Sounds an awful lot like Og's free will. So to make a correct prediction a mega daemon would be required to predict that the daemon will tell Og that he will go down the left fork in the road ahead and then the mega daemon would know that Og would go down the right fork. But of course the mega daemon couldn't tell Og or the daemon what his predictions were, if he did you'd need a mega mega daemon to make correct predictions. And so it goes. If no daemon can predict what Og will do in this deterministic system, then Laplace's daemon is impossible, for some reason you haven't elucidated. L's daemon knows the positions and momenta of all particles to infinite accuracy, of course. He knows the laws of physics, and has infinite computing capacity, and is obviously not bound by Landau's thermodynamic constaints. Perhaps that means he cannot tell Og anything without violating physical law - don't know. But what I do know is that even such a daemon cannot tell what the Helsinki man will see next in Bruno's WM thought experiment. Hence there is an in-principle distinction between the FPI and uncertainty in dynamical chaos. Also, don't bring in free will here. I don't believe free will is possible in a deterministic universe. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? (Perhaps the atom was inside their brain, and its decay just happened to tip the balance of brain chemicals enough that the final decision was in favour of tea rather than coffee... or perhaps the person decided to decide which drink to have on the basis of a reading from a Geiger counter... either way, in this particular case human FW puts them in a bit of a Schroedinger's cat siutation...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:20:44PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO REASON, in other words an event without a cause, in other words random. So a radioactive atom has free will when it decays. A radioactive atom isn't a person, consequently does not have will. At least not when I last checked. But a person choosing what to do as a result of an atom decaying does have free will, I assume? (Perhaps the atom was inside their brain, and its decay just happened to tip the balance of brain chemicals enough that the final decision was in favour of tea rather than coffee... or perhaps the person decided to decide which drink to have on the basis of a reading from a Geiger counter... either way, in this particular case human FW puts them in a bit of a Schroedinger's cat siutation...) Yes. Exactly. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 12 May 2015, at 18:47, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No, what they proved is that physical reality can emulate arithmetic; False. Just read the original paper of Church, Post, Turing, Kleene, please. They don't mention physics at all. Please explain how to build a Turing Machine, or a machine of any sort, without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. Why would Turing machine obeys the laws of physics? Turing machine, like numbers and combinators, does not obeys to laws of physics, but to mathematics. The Turing machine is a mathematical notion which mimics a mathematician doing a computation, of some function from N to N, or NXN to N, etc, with pen and paper. You can implement Turing machine in Lambda calculus, and in that case, you saty in the mathematical. You can implement them in Fortran, in Algol, ... which are still mathematical objects, immaterial, and duplicable. And, you can implement them in the physical reality, apparently, but in that case, and only in that case, you have to take into account the physical laws. Don't ask me to change water in wine. BTW, they prove that the arithmetical reality is NOT emulable by anything. the computable is only a quite tiny part of arithmetic. I know, nearly all numbers are non computable I told you that by numbers I mean integers, what you call number here are non computable functions. It is preferable to stick on the function from N to N, to use the simple tools available there. so physics doesn't know what they are, You don't know that. If we are machine, reality is not a machine, and with comp physics is an important part of that reality, doubtfully completely computable (like the position of an electron going in the slit, note). but mathematics doesn't know what they are either, If by mathematics you mean tha arithmetical truth, then mathematics knows the arithmetical truth. Let me ask you do you believe that the following proposition: either there are positive integers x and y such that x^2 = 991y^2 + 1, or there are none. they aren't the solution to any polynomial equation and no function can produce them, an infinite series can't even approximate one. At this stage, a plea for intuitionism is inadequate. It implies non- comp (strictly speaking). and one sort of physical reality, like a electronic computer, can emulate another sort of physical reality, like a galaxy, but we have no evidence that arithmetic can emulate anything. The proof is in all textbooks Ink on paper is in those textbooks, there is no evidence that any book has ever been able to calculate anything, not even 1+1. You want to fly across the Pacific Ocean on the blueprints of a 747 and it just doesn't work. Grave confusion of level. The sigma_1 arithmetical reality is Turing universal. Robinson arithmetic is Turing universal. Then I suggest you start the Sigma_1 Arithmetical Reality Computer Company with a Robinson Arithmetic subdivision and become the world's first trillionaire. sigh No, the reason is that they want buy physical computer, to enacted the computation relatively to our physical reality. In other words those computer textbooks provide simplified and approximated descriptions of how real computers operate. They described fundamental mathematical object which have been discovered by mathematician working in the foundation of mathematics, bfore we build computers (except for Babbage). Formally, an important set of those objects (functions) appears in Gödel 1931. On the contrary, still today, physical computation is defined by the ability by nature to emulate (approximatively) those mathematical objects. But the physical reality is used only for that relative manifestation, If so then physics can do something mathematics can not, make a calculation that has a relationship with our world. Physics must have some secret sauce that mathematics does not. Only if computationalism is false, as physics has just to be redefined by Plato-Aristotle bastard calculus. Logical mathematical tools gives already the logic of observable for reasonable machine. (once you agree that 2+2=4 is a simpole truth on which we can agree on). We may agree on that but Godel and Turing tell us that there are an infinite number of mathematical statements we will NEVER agree on, They don't say that. They say that for all consistent machine there are statement that they cannot prove. Godel said there are an infinite number of statements that are true (so you can never find a counterexample to prove it wrong) ? You confuse with Chaitin. And Gödel took pain to not use the concept of truth, which was unclear at that time. So I can't see to which theorem you allude too. You would have the slighest understanding of Gödel's theorem,
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Tue, May 12, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No, what they proved is that physical reality can emulate arithmetic; False. Just read the original paper of Church, Post, Turing, Kleene, please. They don't mention physics at all. Please explain how to build a Turing Machine, or a machine of any sort, without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. BTW, they prove that the arithmetical reality is NOT emulable by anything. the computable is only a quite tiny part of arithmetic. I know, nearly all numbers are non computable so physics doesn't know what they are, but mathematics doesn't know what they are either, they aren't the solution to any polynomial equation and no function can produce them, an infinite series can't even approximate one. and one sort of physical reality, like a electronic computer, can emulate another sort of physical reality, like a galaxy, but we have no evidence that arithmetic can emulate anything. The proof is in all textbooks Ink on paper is in those textbooks, there is no evidence that any book has ever been able to calculate anything, not even 1+1. You want to fly across the Pacific Ocean on the blueprints of a 747 and it just doesn't work. The sigma_1 arithmetical reality is Turing universal. Robinson arithmetic is Turing universal. Then I suggest you start the Sigma_1 Arithmetical Reality Computer Company with a Robinson Arithmetic subdivision and become the world's first trillionaire. No, the reason is that they want buy physical computer, to enacted the computation relatively to our physical reality. In other words those computer textbooks provide simplified and approximated descriptions of how real computers operate. But the physical reality is used only for that relative manifestation, If so then physics can do something mathematics can not, make a calculation that has a relationship with our world. Physics must have some secret sauce that mathematics does not. (once you agree that 2+2=4 is a simpole truth on which we can agree on). We may agree on that but Godel and Turing tell us that there are an infinite number of mathematical statements we will NEVER agree on, They don't say that. They say that for all consistent machine there are statement that they cannot prove. Godel said there are an infinite number of statements that are true (so you can never find a counterexample to prove it wrong) but that have no proof (so you can't demonstrate its truth in a finite number of steps). If there were a way to put statements into two categories, the statements that can be proven true or false into one category and the statements that are either false or true but have no proof into another category we could concentrate our efforts on the first category and just ignore the second, but Turing proved that in general you can't even do that. If Goldbach's conjecture is in that second category (and if it isn't there are an infinite number of similar statements that are) then mathematicians could spend eternity looking (unsuccessfully) for a way to prove that Goldbach's conjecture is true, and spend an infinite number of years building ever faster computers looking (unsuccessfully) for an even integer that is not the sum of two prime numbers to prove that Goldbach's conjecture is false. So after an infinite amount of work you'd be no wiser about the truth or falsehood of Goldbach's Conjecture than you are right now. mathematical statements that even mathematics doesn't know if they are true or not. By definition, math knows the truth of the statement. 90 years ago every good mathematician would have agreed with you, even Godel would have agreed with you, he was as surprised as anyone with what he discovered in his 1930 proof, but today no good mathematician would agree with you. You confuse again the mathematical reality and the mathematical theories. Godel and Turing proved that there is no way even in theory to totally separate mathematical reality from mathematical non-reality, nothing can do it, not physics and not even mathematics itself can, therefore it is not valid to speak about a perfect land that contains nothing but truth. So you're the one who is confused not me. sigh burp 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Russel wrote: *Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will*. then: *My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos**Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting* . The term 'nondeterministic' (leading to 'random?') is a nono in my views (and I do not argue for their correctness, only for their LIMITED agnostic nature). *Relations* (what are they?) influence each other, I think so does the Laplace daemon (I never met this guy) so in the churnings of the existence (Nature?) nothing comes un-influenced (randomly, or in a CHAOTIC un-ruliness). I consider chaos the outcome of *orderly* influences including (our) unknown - even (for us) unknowable factors in the 'Everything' (Nature, whatever). Furthermore: if chaos is ubiquitous, or: if random prevails unrestrained, we would have no math-phys laws to observe (consider 2+2=375, or 56831) and e.g. Ohm's law would be unfollowable etc. etc. etc. So far I did not meet an acceptable regulation about WHERE does the potential of random, or chaos prevail and WHERE not? It cannot be a convenience rule, like: it exists there, and ONLY there, where we like it and it does not disturb our natural sciences/mathematics etc. A 'deterministic setting' IMO is the outcome of sometimes controversial trends from diverse influencing tendencies - ALL OF THEM (known and unknown). Whatever 'emerges' is entailed by some origins and influences and it is only our ignorance that calls it 'random', 'chaos', or 'nondeterministic change' etc. etc. In many cases we cannot predict what will happen, because our insight is limited. 'Free will' is a good cop-out, the gods can even punish the 'willer'. Regards John Mikes On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:06:57PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell: you wrote (among many many others): *...No free will = deterministic behaviour... * I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as Quite right. I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour. (= means entailed by, not ≤). Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 12 May 2015, at 10:37 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:23:31AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. I disagree. The final straw either works, or does not work. If you replace half the straw, then the resulting half-straw either works or it doesn't, and that directly affects whether you have a conscious entity or not. No need to invoke a partial zombie. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. It's what happens in the real world all the time. One moment you have a whole working network - the next you have pieces. Consider dismantling an engine. 3 screws out, and the engine still idles. Take the 4th out, and the head falls off. It could work that way with consciousness, and going from full consciousness to full zombie would be a way to avoid the absurdity of partial zombies. But it would have the following consequences: Physiologically, qualia do in fact fade in parallel with function as neurons are destroyed, but if the neurons are replaced, this relationship between function and qualia is overturned. The artificial neurons can sustain the consciousness that would otherwise have been lost, so computationalism is true to this extent, but they lose this capability at a certain threshold. Two beings with partial brain replacements could differ only in the smallest possible increment such as the position of an electron, but one is a zombie and the other fully conscious. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 12 May 2015, at 10:40 am, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 May 2015, at 8:25 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It won't be a specific electron that will switch consciousness off regardless of the order in which you remove parts, as you seem to be implying here, but rather, in a specific sequence of removal of parts, there will be one part that when removed causes the switching off. The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. That seems to be the case in the real world. As brain tissue is destroyed, by injury or disease, specific functionality is lost according to the brain area destroyed, but there is not a fading of consciousness until quite late in this process. Alzheimer's patients can be perfectly conscious although totally gaga. Of course, consciousness is also lost if there is whole-of-brain trauma, such as is induced by a very sharp blow on the head. These two observations are not in conflict. Consciousness has a broader meaning than just being awake. If your memory starts to go, you forget things, and your experience of life changes as a result. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 11 May 2015, at 18:27, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: sigh burp You confuse the notion of computation discovered by the mathematicians, In other words simplified approximations that describe how matter and the laws of physics can make real computations. You would get a bad notes to any exam in computer science. You like to cite Turing, but have never read it. with the notion of physical implementation of computation. In other words real computations that produce real outputs. I guess you are still advocate of the devil. Not a good one. I am not confused, I fully understand that those are two different things. Yes; eventually one is described by p, []p ... and the others are described by []p p, []p t, []p t p. Comp explains why there are different, and this by assuming (in the metaphysical theory, or theology) no more than Robinson arithmetic. It looks like you do assume physicalism, which might not help you to understand what we talk about. You need to understand that the modern post-Turing notion of computation does not assume anything in physics. It needs to assume nor more than Robinson Arithmetic. If anyone is willing to play the role of candid, I can explain all details. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 11 May 2015, at 18:41, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Russell is right. The modern conception of free-will is deterministic behavior. Then a cuckoo clock has free will. Free will needs determinacy, but dterminacy does not need free-will. You confused p - q with q - p. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 11 May 2015, at 18:10, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What computer scientists like Turing and others have proven is that if matter is organized in a X manner then computations Y can be performed, but nobody, absolutely positively NOBODY has come withing a billion light years of figuring out how to add 1+1 without using matter and the laws of physics. What Turing Al have proven is that the arithmetical reality emulates all computation. No, what they proved is that physical reality can emulate arithmetic; False. Just read the original paper of Church, Post, Turing, Kleene, please. They don't mention physics at all. BTW, they prove that the arithmetical reality is NOT emulable by anything. the computable is only a quite tiny part of arithmetic. and one sort of physical reality, like a electronic computer, can emulate another sort of physical reality, like a galaxy, but we have no evidence that arithmetic can emulate anything. The proof is in all textbooks (Epstein Carnielli, or Boolos and Jeffrey, makes it with some detail. Matiyasevich shows that the diophantine polynomial are enough for this. See his book to see how such polynomials emulate register machines. You can use this in the physical reality because we have good evidence that the physical reality is Turing universal. You can ONLY use this in physical reality because that is the only thing we know of that is Turing universal; This is ridiculous. It shows that you are completely ignorant of computer science. The sigma_1 arithmetical reality is Turing universal. Robinson arithmetic is Turing universal. That arithmetic emulates all UMs has been proven. It is part of the basics, which does not mean it is simple to do, especially in a mail list. that's the reason computer hardware companies have manufacturing costs that are not zero, and that's the only reason. No, the reason is that they want buy physical computer, to enacted the computation relatively to our physical reality. But the physical reality is used only for that relative manifestation, like the duplicated brain. That does not make the computation in arithmetic disappearing. The fact that you need a physical computer, or a brain, to enacted computation relatively to the physical reality is not an argument that the computation, notably those related to us, is not due to the one done in arithmetic I disagree, I think it's an excellent argument that arithmetic without matter that obeys the laws of physics can't do anything, in fact it would be hard to imagine a stronger argument. Invalid argument, of the type I understand the point, but I will continue to say that the real thing is that God made it. (once you agree that 2+2=4 is a simpole truth on which we can agree on). We may agree on that but Godel and Turing tell us that there are an infinite number of mathematical statements we will NEVER agree on, They don't say that. They say that for all consistent machine there are statement that they cannot prove. mathematical statements that even mathematics doesn't know if they are true or not. By definition, math knows the truth of the statement. You confuse again the mathematical reality and the mathematical theories. And since there is no way for ANYTHING to separate all true statements from all false statements even Platonia contains an infinite amount of Bullshit. sigh bruno John K Clark Bruno John K Clark but to show a computation, we need to go through descriptions, and between physical being, we will use the physical means. That confusion level error that I want to prevent here would be the same as a guy saying that neurophysiology is absurd because all the theories on how the brain might function are using brain! On 09 May 2015, at 02:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:45:53PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact initial conditions Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. That is an interesting objection, but not one
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
I haven't a clue what you're rabitting on about here,so I'll let it pass without comment... On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:00:19PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russel wrote: *Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will*. then: *My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos**Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting* . The term 'nondeterministic' (leading to 'random?') is a nono in my views (and I do not argue for their correctness, only for their LIMITED agnostic nature). *Relations* (what are they?) influence each other, I think so does the Laplace daemon (I never met this guy) so in the churnings of the existence (Nature?) nothing comes un-influenced (randomly, or in a CHAOTIC un-ruliness). I consider chaos the outcome of *orderly* influences including (our) unknown - even (for us) unknowable factors in the 'Everything' (Nature, whatever). Furthermore: if chaos is ubiquitous, or: if random prevails unrestrained, we would have no math-phys laws to observe (consider 2+2=375, or 56831) and e.g. Ohm's law would be unfollowable etc. etc. etc. So far I did not meet an acceptable regulation about WHERE does the potential of random, or chaos prevail and WHERE not? It cannot be a convenience rule, like: it exists there, and ONLY there, where we like it and it does not disturb our natural sciences/mathematics etc. A 'deterministic setting' IMO is the outcome of sometimes controversial trends from diverse influencing tendencies - ALL OF THEM (known and unknown). Whatever 'emerges' is entailed by some origins and influences and it is only our ignorance that calls it 'random', 'chaos', or 'nondeterministic change' etc. etc. In many cases we cannot predict what will happen, because our insight is limited. 'Free will' is a good cop-out, the gods can even punish the 'willer'. Regards John Mikes On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:06:57PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell: you wrote (among many many others): *...No free will = deterministic behaviour... * I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as Quite right. I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour. (= means entailed by, not ≤). Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/12/2015 12:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 May 2015, at 10:37 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:23:31AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. I disagree. The final straw either works, or does not work. If you replace half the straw, then the resulting half-straw either works or it doesn't, and that directly affects whether you have a conscious entity or not. No need to invoke a partial zombie. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. It's what happens in the real world all the time. One moment you have a whole working network - the next you have pieces. Consider dismantling an engine. 3 screws out, and the engine still idles. Take the 4th out, and the head falls off. It could work that way with consciousness, and going from full consciousness to full zombie would be a way to avoid the absurdity of partial zombies. But it would have the following consequences: Physiologically, qualia do in fact fade in parallel with function as neurons are destroyed, but if the neurons are replaced, this relationship between function and qualia is overturned. The artificial neurons can sustain the consciousness that would otherwise have been lost, so computationalism is true to this extent, but they lose this capability at a certain threshold. Two beings with partial brain replacements could differ only in the smallest possible increment such as the position of an electron, but one is a zombie and the other fully conscious. I don't understand you reference to fading qualia. Chalmers argued that there could not be fading qualia in a transistion from a biological brain to a functionally identical silicon chip brain. That doesn't rule out qualia fading as neurons or transistors are simply lost from the system. In that case I think it quite likely that qualia will fade. And fading may me loss of some aspect of qualia. For example we could lose color vision if we lost the cone receptors in our retinas. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 13 May 2015 at 09:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/12/2015 12:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 May 2015, at 10:37 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:23:31AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. I disagree. The final straw either works, or does not work. If you replace half the straw, then the resulting half-straw either works or it doesn't, and that directly affects whether you have a conscious entity or not. No need to invoke a partial zombie. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. It's what happens in the real world all the time. One moment you have a whole working network - the next you have pieces. Consider dismantling an engine. 3 screws out, and the engine still idles. Take the 4th out, and the head falls off. It could work that way with consciousness, and going from full consciousness to full zombie would be a way to avoid the absurdity of partial zombies. But it would have the following consequences: Physiologically, qualia do in fact fade in parallel with function as neurons are destroyed, but if the neurons are replaced, this relationship between function and qualia is overturned. The artificial neurons can sustain the consciousness that would otherwise have been lost, so computationalism is true to this extent, but they lose this capability at a certain threshold. Two beings with partial brain replacements could differ only in the smallest possible increment such as the position of an electron, but one is a zombie and the other fully conscious. I don't understand you reference to fading qualia. Chalmers argued that there could not be fading qualia in a transistion from a biological brain to a functionally identical silicon chip brain. That doesn't rule out qualia fading as neurons or transistors are simply lost from the system. In that case I think it quite likely that qualia will fade. And fading may me loss of some aspect of qualia. For example we could lose color vision if we lost the cone receptors in our retinas. I agree with your comment. My post was in response to Russell, who claimed that a way out of the Fading Qualia paper conclusion that computerised replacement of neurons would preserve consciousness was that the qualia could remain until some threshold of replacement was reached then suddenly disappear, causing a transition from full consciousness to full zombie. Bruno also suggested something like this. It is possible, but it would mean there is a decoupling between qualia and the underlying function, and it would also make for a kind of weird partial computationalism. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:11:47AM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour. (= means entailed by, not ≤). Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. You say that no free will is caused by deterministic behavior, and nondeterminism (randomness) need not have free will, so now that you've told me what free will isn't it might be nice if you told me what in the world free will is. Then after we agree on what the term means we can debate if human beings or computers or anything has this property or not. Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational. That's it. I don't normally engage in discussions about free will, as too many people have nonsensical notions of what it is, including the notion that it just a meaningless sound made be flapping chunks of meat together. Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. As I said before, if the daemon tells Og what his prediction of Og's behavior will be the situation is not deterministic, or at least it can not be determined by the daemon, for that you'd need a mega-daemon. And then things iterate. No you don't. Because the system is deterministic (after all the whole premiss of this thread of conversation is dynamical chaos, which is a deterministic system), it doesn't matter what the daemon tells Og, Og will do what he was going to do anyway, as he is deterministic, and the daemon is deterministic. In order to get the effect that you're describing, you need a non-deterministic world, which happily we appear to live in, due in no small part to the FPI effect. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 10 May 2015, at 23:29, LizR wrote: On 11 May 2015 at 04:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You make me say something ridiculous, when I just use a theorem in elementary computer science. It's called a straw man argument. It's often a lot easier to attack a position you don't hold than the one you do, so people often put words into your mouth, then attack the perceived position. It is sad that I got this as only critics. (Except rarely some real critics which have been able to improve or correct some points). Up to now, the problems are only with people not reading the work. Never has any problem with those who study the work, and that's how I got the PHD, except from those who simply disbelieved the well known facts in some of the field crossed. here too, I realize that some people does just not know what a computation is, in the sense of Church-Turing. I could make new attempts to clarify this, but I do suppose people can buy some book too, and makes some home works, before saying negative things on what they cannot understand without being more familiar with such notions. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:46:14AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I agree with your comment. My post was in response to Russell, who claimed that a way out of the Fading Qualia paper conclusion that computerised replacement of neurons would preserve consciousness was that the qualia could remain until some threshold of replacement was reached then suddenly disappear, causing a transition from full consciousness to full zombie. Bruno also suggested something like this. It is possible, but it would mean there is a decoupling between qualia and the underlying function, and it would also make for a kind of weird partial computationalism. That's what you haven't demonstrated. I don't see why you say this. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Mon, May 11, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Russell: wrote : *...No free will = deterministic behaviour... * I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as well, as unknow/unknowable) inputs a/effecting our decisionmaking. It's irrelevant if we know what they are or not, if something is effecting our behavior then obviously cause and effect is in play and things are deterministic. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Mon, May 11, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour. (= means entailed by, not ≤). Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. You say that no free will is caused by deterministic behavior, and nondeterminism (randomness) need not have free will, so now that you've told me what free will isn't it might be nice if you told me what in the world free will is. Then after we agree on what the term means we can debate if human beings or computers or anything has this property or not. Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. As I said before, if the daemon tells Og what his prediction of Og's behavior will be the situation is not deterministic, or at least it can not be determined by the daemon, for that you'd need a mega-daemon. And then things iterate. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the whole is bigger? And when consciousness would disappear? It has to disappear, even just with physical supervenience, but then we are back to fading qualia. I have never accepted the fading qualia argument. Subtracting links from a network will at some point cause it to fall in two. Up to that point, it is little different from the original network. After that pointit is vastly improverished. This phenomenon goes by the name of percolation threshold. Similarly, with fading qualia, one would expect that at some point, one adds the straw that breaks the camel's back. Why should we not expect the same with removing bits from the recording? After all, if the original recording animated the whole brain, destroying part of the recording will cause some neurons to misbehave. Eventually, the system will be physically unable to support consciousness, but well before every neuron is misbehaving. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Monday, May 11, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the whole is bigger? And when consciousness would disappear? It has to disappear, even just with physical supervenience, but then we are back to fading qualia. I have never accepted the fading qualia argument. Subtracting links from a network will at some point cause it to fall in two. Up to that point, it is little different from the original network. After that pointit is vastly improverished. This phenomenon goes by the name of percolation threshold. Similarly, with fading qualia, one would expect that at some point, one adds the straw that breaks the camel's back. Why should we not expect the same with removing bits from the recording? After all, if the original recording animated the whole brain, destroying part of the recording will cause some neurons to misbehave. Eventually, the system will be physically unable to support consciousness, but well before every neuron is misbehaving. It is possible that as brain tissue is replaced (with electronic circuits or whatever) there is no change in qualia until a certain threshold, then all of a sudden the qualia disappear. The threshold would probably have to be a quantum scale event, since even at the level of small molecules it is possible to perform partial replacement, resulting in the problem of partial zombies. So in order to avoid fading qualia and partial zombies you have to have something like this: consciousness survives brain tissue replacement until a certain electron in a certain atom changes orbital, at which point consciousness instantly vanishes but behaviour remains unchanged, resulting in a full zombie. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Russell: you wrote (among many many others): *...No free will = deterministic behaviour... * I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as well, as unknow/unknowable) inputs a/effecting our decisionmaking. We like to call it free will for putting ourselves into an elegant, superb position. I accept SOME deterministic trend, stronger and weaker ones in that unfathomable variety of 'everything', but a balance of them results in a decision we ordinarily may even call 'counterproductive'. We (here and now) have no way to select the 'final' decisionmaking from dilemmata we may call free will cases. Respectfully John Mikes On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 05:16:43PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Indeterminacy means uncertainty, maybe my senses just haven't given me enough information about the present to predict the future, or maybe the computation is so big that by the time I complete it the future will have already arrived, or maybe the trouble is the Halting Problem and there is no shortcut so if I want to know what the universe is going to throw at me next all I can do is wait and see. Or maybe it's just that some events have no cause. Any of this things will result in me (the first person) being uncertain (indeterminate) about the future. Bruno claims and you agree that he has found an additional source of uncertainty but neither of you can coherently elucidate exactly what it is. So you say. Nobody else here seems to agree, And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. Free will? Oh yes I remember now, that means not doing things because of cause and effect and not not doing things because of cause and effect. In other words free will means gibberish. I said it before I'll say it again, free will is a idea so bad its not even wrong. Hence I was rather surpised that you of all people suggested Laplace's daemon could influence Og in such a way that it could not predict Og's behaviour. No free will = deterministic behaviour. If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a Mac I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. So? Relevance? You tell me, you're the one who brought it up. No it was you. Your email citation tool is mucking up the attribution. UDA 1-7 shows that whatever the ultimate primitive reality is, properties of matter (ie physics) must only depend on the fact that the ultimate primitive reality is capable of universal computation. And the only thing ever found capable of universal computation, or capable of making a computation of any sort, is matter operating according to the laws of physics; nothing else has ever come close, nothing else can even add 1+1. Lots of things have been found capable of universal computation, including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. After all, what's going on in a PC or Mac are actually changes in analogue voltage levels, where the engineers designate certain voltage ranges as 0 or 1. (eg 1v means 0 and 2v means 1, with in between levels indeterminate). As of today if the laws of physics are not involved nobody has ever been able to calculate ANYTHING. That's why people still make computer hardware. Bruno - can you provide a citation to John. He clearly doesn't believe you. I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to look at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who can add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a computer hardware company and crush the competition because our ^^^ You can't have a computer _hardware_ company selling abstract computers!!! That's an oxymoron. manufacturing costs are zero. The problem is that all your customers will be abstract, so your revenue will probably also be zero. I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate programs simultaneously, so what's
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 12 May 2015, at 8:25 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:51:18PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, May 11, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the whole is bigger? And when consciousness would disappear? It has to disappear, even just with physical supervenience, but then we are back to fading qualia. I have never accepted the fading qualia argument. Subtracting links from a network will at some point cause it to fall in two. Up to that point, it is little different from the original network. After that pointit is vastly improverished. This phenomenon goes by the name of percolation threshold. Similarly, with fading qualia, one would expect that at some point, one adds the straw that breaks the camel's back. Why should we not expect the same with removing bits from the recording? After all, if the original recording animated the whole brain, destroying part of the recording will cause some neurons to misbehave. Eventually, the system will be physically unable to support consciousness, but well before every neuron is misbehaving. It is possible that as brain tissue is replaced (with electronic circuits or whatever) there is no change in qualia until a certain threshold, then all of a sudden the qualia disappear. The threshold would probably have to be a quantum scale event, since even at the level of small molecules it is possible to perform partial replacement, resulting in the problem of partial zombies. So in order to avoid fading qualia and partial zombies you have to have something like this: consciousness survives brain tissue replacement until a certain electron in a certain atom changes orbital, at which point consciousness instantly vanishes but behaviour remains unchanged, resulting in a full zombie. It won't be a specific electron that will switch consciousness off regardless of the order in which you remove parts, as you seem to be implying here, but rather, in a specific sequence of removal of parts, there will be one part that when removed causes the switching off. The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. Under normal circumstances, quantum scale events should never cause loss of consciousness, because there is sufficient redundancy in the brain network, but they can cause macroscopic changes in brain behaviour due to chaotic amplification. This is the source of creativity, ISTM. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 May 2015, at 8:25 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It won't be a specific electron that will switch consciousness off regardless of the order in which you remove parts, as you seem to be implying here, but rather, in a specific sequence of removal of parts, there will be one part that when removed causes the switching off. The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. That seems to be the case in the real world. As brain tissue is destroyed, by injury or disease, specific functionality is lost according to the brain area destroyed, but there is not a fading of consciousness until quite late in this process. Alzheimer's patients can be perfectly conscious although totally gaga. Of course, consciousness is also lost if there is whole-of-brain trauma, such as is induced by a very sharp blow on the head. These two observations are not in conflict. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:23:31AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a partial zombie by replacing half the straw. I disagree. The final straw either works, or does not work. If you replace half the straw, then the resulting half-straw either works or it doesn't, and that directly affects whether you have a conscious entity or not. No need to invoke a partial zombie. It would lead to a strange form of computationalism: you could replace say 40% of the brain without any problem, but go to 40.0001% and consciousness gies off. It's what happens in the real world all the time. One moment you have a whole working network - the next you have pieces. Consider dismantling an engine. 3 screws out, and the engine still idles. Take the 4th out, and the head falls off. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:06:57PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell: you wrote (among many many others): *...No free will = deterministic behaviour... * I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as Quite right. I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour. (= means entailed by, not ≤). Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:51:18PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, May 11, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the whole is bigger? And when consciousness would disappear? It has to disappear, even just with physical supervenience, but then we are back to fading qualia. I have never accepted the fading qualia argument. Subtracting links from a network will at some point cause it to fall in two. Up to that point, it is little different from the original network. After that pointit is vastly improverished. This phenomenon goes by the name of percolation threshold. Similarly, with fading qualia, one would expect that at some point, one adds the straw that breaks the camel's back. Why should we not expect the same with removing bits from the recording? After all, if the original recording animated the whole brain, destroying part of the recording will cause some neurons to misbehave. Eventually, the system will be physically unable to support consciousness, but well before every neuron is misbehaving. It is possible that as brain tissue is replaced (with electronic circuits or whatever) there is no change in qualia until a certain threshold, then all of a sudden the qualia disappear. The threshold would probably have to be a quantum scale event, since even at the level of small molecules it is possible to perform partial replacement, resulting in the problem of partial zombies. So in order to avoid fading qualia and partial zombies you have to have something like this: consciousness survives brain tissue replacement until a certain electron in a certain atom changes orbital, at which point consciousness instantly vanishes but behaviour remains unchanged, resulting in a full zombie. It won't be a specific electron that will switch consciousness off regardless of the order in which you remove parts, as you seem to be implying here, but rather, in a specific sequence of removal of parts, there will be one part that when removed causes the switching off. Under normal circumstances, quantum scale events should never cause loss of consciousness, because there is sufficient redundancy in the brain network, but they can cause macroscopic changes in brain behaviour due to chaotic amplification. This is the source of creativity, ISTM. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Russell is right. The modern conception of free-will is deterministic behavior. Then a cuckoo clock has free will. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What computer scientists like Turing and others have proven is that if matter is organized in a X manner then computations Y can be performed, but nobody, absolutely positively NOBODY has come withing a billion light years of figuring out how to add 1+1 without using matter and the laws of physics. What Turing Al have proven is that the arithmetical reality emulates all computation. No, what they proved is that physical reality can emulate arithmetic; and one sort of physical reality, like a electronic computer, can emulate another sort of physical reality, like a galaxy, but we have no evidence that arithmetic can emulate anything. You can use this in the physical reality because we have good evidence that the physical reality is Turing universal. You can ONLY use this in physical reality because that is the only thing we know of that is Turing universal; that's the reason computer hardware companies have manufacturing costs that are not zero, and that's the only reason. The fact that you need a physical computer, or a brain, to enacted computation relatively to the physical reality is not an argument that the computation, notably those related to us, is not due to the one done in arithmetic I disagree, I think it's an excellent argument that arithmetic without matter that obeys the laws of physics can't do anything, in fact it would be hard to imagine a stronger argument. (once you agree that 2+2=4 is a simpole truth on which we can agree on). We may agree on that but Godel and Turing tell us that there are an infinite number of mathematical statements we will NEVER agree on, mathematical statements that even mathematics doesn't know if they are true or not. And since there is no way for ANYTHING to separate all true statements from all false statements even Platonia contains an infinite amount of Bullshit. John K Clark Bruno John K Clark but to show a computation, we need to go through descriptions, and between physical being, we will use the physical means. That confusion level error that I want to prevent here would be the same as a guy saying that neurophysiology is absurd because all the theories on how the brain might function are using brain! On 09 May 2015, at 02:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:45:53PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact initial conditions Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. That is an interesting objection, but not one that's really relevant to the case at hand (distinguising dynamical chaos from teh FPI). and tell you what will be experienced next. And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. With FPI, Laplace's daemon cannot do that. Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega. daemons can answer gibberish questions. True, but you're implying that what my next experience is is a gibberish question, when it clearly isn't. What's more, I can find out just by waiting a bit. the third person answer will always be probabilistic. What I see in the first person not probabalistic. In physics everything is probabilistic and we live in a world governed by the laws of physics. It is definite, and I only need to wait around to find out. And Turing tells us that for some things, like figuring out if a program will stop, you'll have to wait around for a infinite, and not just astronomically large, number of years and even then you still won't find out if it stops
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: sigh burp You confuse the notion of computation discovered by the mathematicians, In other words simplified approximations that describe how matter and the laws of physics can make real computations. with the notion of physical implementation of computation. In other words real computations that produce real outputs. I am not confused, I fully understand that those are two different things. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 11 May 2015 at 05:49, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Before I get started I want to remind people that I'm playing devil's advocate here, maybe mathematics really is more fundamental than physics but I've been taking the opposite stance in the last few posts because nearly everybody on this list assumes the question is settled, and it isn't. Sure. I certainly don't assume it's settled, indeed at every opportunity I ask for a proof or demonstration or even a logical reason why it may not be. But so far all I've heard is along the lines of we select the part of maths that works to describe physics as though that made it reasonable that it does. Which of course doesn't even address the question of why does reality have this structure - based on symmetries and equations, apparently. Obviously if reality is primary material it may come down to something like (for example) a crystal which can only be arranged in certain ways, and the fundamental question becomes something like why does 3D space have the property that you can only pack the Planck cells into it THIS way? But even then you need some basic properties that just work in that they respect some form of logic. Where does *that* come from? Answers on a postcard. PS in the 70s it seemed quite amusing that Douglas Adams gave the ultimate answer as 42 - but now, at least on this list, its starting to look like that may have been kind of prescient after all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Le 10 mai 2015 23:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 5/10/2015 12:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 10 mai 2015 19:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 5/10/2015 12:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. And also, if physics is primary, then logic is contingent. How is it that our world is meaningful and we can make deductive argument about it? Why physics does respect logic It doesn't. So physics is not bound to logic but a god must be? It's not physics(=the physical world) that's bound, it's what we say about physics(=theories of the physical world). Logic is a restriction on assertions, i.e. the use of conjunctions, disjunctions, negation, quantifiers, modes,... How deductive arguments could make sense if deduction itself is created? We created language, and we discovered that if we didn't follow certain rules we could make bad inferences. And how are you sure of this ? If we or the physical reality invented the rules, how can we be bound to it ? Why is the physical real respects the rule of non contradiction? So we invented logic...actually we invented many different logics as we tried to codify things so that we wouldn't get crazy results like X and not-X. Brent Quentin You must not have followed the development quantum mechanics. It's logic that has to respect physics. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 11 May 2015 at 04:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You make me say something ridiculous, when I just use a theorem in elementary computer science. It's called a straw man argument. It's often a lot easier to attack a position you don't hold than the one you do, so people often put words into your mouth, then attack the perceived position. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/10/2015 12:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 10 mai 2015 19:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 5/10/2015 12:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. And also, if physics is primary, then logic is contingent. How is it that our world is meaningful and we can make deductive argument about it? Why physics does respect logic It doesn't. So physics is not bound to logic but a god must be? It's not physics(=the physical world) that's bound, it's what we say about physics(=theories of the physical world). Logic is a restriction on assertions, i.e. the use of conjunctions, disjunctions, negation, quantifiers, modes,... How deductive arguments could make sense if deduction itself is created? We created language, and we discovered that if we didn't follow certain rules we could make bad inferences. So we invented logic...actually we invented many different logics as we tried to codify things so that we wouldn't get crazy results like X and not-X. Brent Quentin You must not have followed the development quantum mechanics. It's logic that has to respect physics. 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 11 May 2015 at 04:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/10/2015 3:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 10 May 2015 at 08:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. After all, what's going on in a PC or Mac are actually changes in analogue voltage levels, where the engineers designate certain voltage ranges as 0 or 1. (eg 1v means 0 and 2v means 1, with in between levels indeterminate). The interesting thing about this is to consider what happens when the physical system is implementing a conscious computation. One could claim that any physical system implements any computation under some mapping of system states to computational states, but an objection to this is that it is, if not false, vacuous, because the computer cannot interact with its environment. For example, it can't be used to provide us the result of a calculation, because the result must already be known in order to know the mapping. But if the computation implements a consciousness with no interaction with the environment, that objection fails: the computation creates its own observer, But what does it observe? I think an environment is necessary - not necessarily at the moment, but to provide reference/meaning to the computation that is conscious. It observes itself if it is dreaming, or it observes the virtual environment. If it observes its virtual environment, there is no necessity that that either the observer or the environment interact with the world at the level of the substance of their implementation. Brent and it doesn't make any difference if no-one at the level of the substrate of its implementation can understand it. This argument has been used as a reductio by Hilary Putnam and John Searle, among others, to show that computationalism must be false. The conclusion is that the consciousness cannot supervene on computation since otherwise it would have to supervene on any physical system at all. This is analogous to Maudlin's conclusion that consciousness cannot supervene on computation because otherwise it would supervene on a recording. But there is an alternative, and that is that consciousness does supervene on computation, but not on a physical implementation of computation. If this is granted, there is no reductio ad absurdum (assuming you do think the conclusions are absurd) with either Putnam's argument or Maudlin's argument. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/10/2015 5:01 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 11 May 2015 at 04:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/10/2015 3:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 10 May 2015 at 08:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. After all, what's going on in a PC or Mac are actually changes in analogue voltage levels, where the engineers designate certain voltage ranges as 0 or 1. (eg 1v means 0 and 2v means 1, with in between levels indeterminate). The interesting thing about this is to consider what happens when the physical system is implementing a conscious computation. One could claim that any physical system implements any computation under some mapping of system states to computational states, but an objection to this is that it is, if not false, vacuous, because the computer cannot interact with its environment. For example, it can't be used to provide us the result of a calculation, because the result must already be known in order to know the mapping. But if the computation implements a consciousness with no interaction with the environment, that objection fails: the computation creates its own observer, But what does it observe? I think an environment is necessary - not necessarily at the moment, but to provide reference/meaning to the computation that is conscious. It observes itself if it is dreaming, or it observes the virtual environment. If it observes its virtual environment, there is no necessity that that either the observer or the environment interact with the world at the level of the substance of their implementation. True, but a virtual environment to an AI is an environment just like anyother. It is generally talked about as if it's separate, but I think the two must be considered as a whole. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. And also, if physics is primary, then logic is contingent. How is it that our world is meaningful and we can make deductive argument about it? Why physics does respect logic and so is bound to it and at the same time the origin of it...? Nothing mandates that if physics is ontologically primitive. Quentin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/10/2015 12:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. And also, if physics is primary, then logic is contingent. How is it that our world is meaningful and we can make deductive argument about it? Why physics does respect logic It doesn't. You must not have followed the development quantum mechanics. It's logic that has to respect physics. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Before I get started I want to remind people that I'm playing devil's advocate here, maybe mathematics really is more fundamental than physics but I've been taking the opposite stance in the last few posts because nearly everybody on this list assumes the question is settled, and it isn't. A strong case (but falling short of a proof) can be made that physics is the more fundamental. Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory [...] And whoever makes that allegation is talking nonsense. Nobody can add 1+1 with number theory, you need matter and the laws of physics. claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory The quantity of computation can be objectively measured and the amount of energy and time used and entropy produced can be precisely predicted for and given calculation, and how long it will take to transmit the results of a calculation over a wire of a given diameter can also be predicted. You can't do any of that with abstract things like love or beauty or justice, but you can do it for calculation. or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does By saying anyone you're implying the existence of physics and at least one physical thing, but as I said before if not even one thing existed, much less 4, it is not at all obvious that 2+2=4 would have any meaning. To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences I can't prove my point and you can't prove yours unless you can explain why a computer made of matter that obeys the laws of physics can determine that 2^57,885,161 − 1, a number with 17,425,170 digits, is prime. I don't have a proof but I can speculate that both the physicist and the mathematician try to make laws that are free from self contradictions, so when a physicist describes nature it will be consistent with one of those mathematical laws. But there are large areas of mathematics, especially modern mathematics, that don't seem to correspond with anything physical. Maybe physicists just haven't found them yet but if such correspondences don't exist would that mean much of modern mathematics has no more reality than a Harry Potter novel? And then there is the question of axioms. J K Rowling made a entertaining and largely plot hole free series of books starting with the assumption (axiom) that magic exists, suppose a mathematician started with the assumption (axiom) that the Goldbach's conjecture was true and went on from there using impeccable logic to write thousands of pages of mathematics and proved hundreds of unusual theorems. But then one day a computer made of matter and obeying the laws of physics found an even integer that was NOT the sum of two prime numbers. Would there be any fundamental difference between what the mathematician did and what Rowling did? Mathematicians often say that mathematics is a language, it that's true then the big question is what is that language talking about? If it isn't something physical then what is it? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/10/2015 3:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 10 May 2015 at 08:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. After all, what's going on in a PC or Mac are actually changes in analogue voltage levels, where the engineers designate certain voltage ranges as 0 or 1. (eg 1v means 0 and 2v means 1, with in between levels indeterminate). The interesting thing about this is to consider what happens when the physical system is implementing a conscious computation. One could claim that any physical system implements any computation under some mapping of system states to computational states, but an objection to this is that it is, if not false, vacuous, because the computer cannot interact with its environment. For example, it can't be used to provide us the result of a calculation, because the result must already be known in order to know the mapping. But if the computation implements a consciousness with no interaction with the environment, that objection fails: the computation creates its own observer, But what does it observe? I think an environment is necessary - not necessarily at the moment, but to provide reference/meaning to the computation that is conscious. Brent and it doesn't make any difference if no-one at the level of the substrate of its implementation can understand it. This argument has been used as a reductio by Hilary Putnam and John Searle, among others, to show that computationalism must be false. The conclusion is that the consciousness cannot supervene on computation since otherwise it would have to supervene on any physical system at all. This is analogous to Maudlin's conclusion that consciousness cannot supervene on computation because otherwise it would supervene on a recording. But there is an alternative, and that is that consciousness does supervene on computation, but not on a physical implementation of computation. If this is granted, there is no reductio ad absurdum (assuming you do think the conclusions are absurd) with either Putnam's argument or Maudlin's argument. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 10 May 2015, at 00:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 08:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: For the recording, its largeness is irrelevant. It is just not a computing device. No the recording is the program. How could you write it in LISP? Or in Fortran? It does not make sense to me to say that a recording is a program, unless you use it to reinstanciate the boolean graph. The computing device is the recording player. I see only an analogical machine computing some elementary projections, trying to do some effort of imagination. It does not compute anything in a sense relevent to say that it enacted consciousness. True it is not a universal computer, only a special purpose one. Is universal computation necessary for consciousness though? technically, no. Subcreativity is enough, but this is a very technical, and usually I demand universality (since salvia, before I demanded Löbianity, which is stronger). It is in any way much more complex than a sequence of arbitrary projection, as the relation involves the counterfactuals, which gives sense to computations. If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the whole is bigger? And when consciousness would disappear? It has to disappear, even just with physical supervenience, but then we are back to fading qualia. Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 10 May 2015, at 02:08, John Clark wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: No free will = deterministic behaviour. Free will = random behavior. No Russell is right. The modern conception of free-will is deterministic behavior. Lots of things have been found capable of universal computation, Bullshit. sigh including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. sigh You confuse the notion of computation discovered by the mathematicians, with the notion of physical implementation of computation, defined by using physics and the mathematical definition. You do revisionism. In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. And all observers are made of matter that obey the laws of physics. I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to look at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who can add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a computer hardware company and crush the competition because our You can't have a computer _hardware_ company selling abstract computers!!! I know, that's why you and Bruno are talking nonsense. Well, wait the day they put patent on idea and theorem. You will pay taxes for the number of use you made of the modus ponens! You are confusing mind and brain. I said I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate programs simultaneously and you responded with But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. Mind is what a brain does and running programs is what a computer does, This is what is refuted, and you take that for granted, by stopping with anybody knowing why at step 3. We have stopped to take seriously on this, as you have not succeeded in saying what you don't understand, as you invoke an ambiguity, and when we shows the precision, you said just pee-pee. Bruno so a blind man in a fog bank could see that its you not me who is confusing mind and brain. the consciousness of the intelligent conscious program doesn't change in the here and now even if it's rerun a trillion times because none of the virtual landmarks change, subjectively it would be exactly the same if the program was only run once. And the same would be true if you play back a recording of the consciousness; such a playback may be of use to a third party watching it but it would do nothing to the intelligent conscious program itself. I think we're in agreement here. I think the way physical supervenience is used in the MGA is confusing for exactly this reason. I think your use of the word supervenience is confusing. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 10 May 2015, at 04:41, LizR wrote: On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Not really. Penrose is Aristotelian, but still believe in arithmetical realism (and even in a vaster mathematical realism). I think it is just the ignorance of the basic of computer science. Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). Exactly, and *all* physical theories assumes this. In fact, they have to assume this if they want to prove the exosyence of physical computation, which use the mathematical notion in its definition. To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. Yes, with comp the relation between math and physics is close to the relation between mind and matter. But the basic idea is simple, number explains the dreams, and the logic of the dreams explains the development of persistent sharable (multi-universal beings) dreams. The explanation is enough constructive to be already tested today, and up to now, it works? Which says nothing on the future. Physics does not explain the numbers, but assumes them at the start, which is natural, as number incarnate themselves in all the ohysical things which we are confronted to. But it does not address the question of the origin of math, and the differentiation of physics from math, which comp explains (correctly or incorrectly: that is what can be tested). bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 09 May 2015, at 23:40, John Clark wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The cimputation, as defined in computer science, is a the mathematical object provably existing in the same sense as the existence of prime numbers, What computer scientists like Turing and others have proven is that if matter is organized in a X manner then computations Y can be performed, but nobody, absolutely positively NOBODY has come withing a billion light years of figuring out how to add 1+1 without using matter and the laws of physics. What Turing Al have proven is that the arithmetical reality emulates all computation. You can use this in the physical reality because we have good evidence that the physical reality is Turing universal. You make me say something ridiculous, when I just use a theorem in elementary computer science. The fact that you need a physical computer, or a brain, to enacted computation relatively to the physical reality is not an argument that the computation, notably those related to us, is not due to the one done in arithmetic (once you agree that 2+2=4 is a simpole truth on which we can agree on). Bruno John K Clark but to show a computation, we need to go through descriptions, and between physical being, we will use the physical means. That confusion level error that I want to prevent here would be the same as a guy saying that neurophysiology is absurd because all the theories on how the brain might function are using brain! On 09 May 2015, at 02:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:45:53PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact initial conditions Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. That is an interesting objection, but not one that's really relevant to the case at hand (distinguising dynamical chaos from teh FPI). and tell you what will be experienced next. And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega- daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. With FPI, Laplace's daemon cannot do that. Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega. daemons can answer gibberish questions. True, but you're implying that what my next experience is is a gibberish question, when it clearly isn't. What's more, I can find out just by waiting a bit. the third person answer will always be probabilistic. What I see in the first person not probabalistic. In physics everything is probabilistic and we live in a world governed by the laws of physics. It is definite, and I only need to wait around to find out. And Turing tells us that for some things, like figuring out if a program will stop, you'll have to wait around for a infinite, and not just astronomically large, number of years and even then you still won't find out if it stops or not. Sure - another difference between FPI and the Halting theorem. nobody knows how to make a Turing Machine or a computer or how to make one single calculation without using matter that operates according to the laws of physics. Maybe there is some other way to do it but if there is nobody knows what it is. IMHO, one can never know what it is made out of. That is equivalent to saying the blunders in Bruno's proof can never be repaired. Hardly - that is the result at step 7, nothing to do with your so- called blunders. IMHO, one can go there directly in one step, as it is a pretty obvious conclusion from the CT thesis. Pretty obvious? I agree that any finite program that terminates can be calculated on a Turing Machine, but there is in general no way
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
Le 10 mai 2015 19:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 5/10/2015 12:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. And also, if physics is primary, then logic is contingent. How is it that our world is meaningful and we can make deductive argument about it? Why physics does respect logic It doesn't. So physics is not bound to logic but a god must be? How deductive arguments could make sense if deduction itself is created? Quentin You must not have followed the development quantum mechanics. It's logic that has to respect physics. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: No free will = deterministic behaviour. Free will = random behavior. Lots of things have been found capable of universal computation, Bullshit. including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. And all observers are made of matter that obey the laws of physics. I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to look at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who can add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a computer hardware company and crush the competition because our You can't have a computer _hardware_ company selling abstract computers!!! I know, that's why you and Bruno are talking nonsense. You are confusing mind and brain. I said I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate programs simultaneously and you responded with But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. Mind is what a brain does and running programs is what a computer does, so a blind man in a fog bank could see that its you not me who is confusing mind and brain. the consciousness of the intelligent conscious program doesn't change in the here and now even if it's rerun a trillion times because none of the virtual landmarks change, subjectively it would be exactly the same if the program was only run once. And the same would be true if you play back a recording of the consciousness; such a playback may be of use to a third party watching it but it would do nothing to the intelligent conscious program itself. I think we're in agreement here. I think the way physical supervenience is used in the MGA is confusing for exactly this reason. I think your use of the word supervenience is confusing. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 08:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: For the recording, its largeness is irrelevant. It is just not a computing device. No the recording is the program. The computing device is the recording player. True it is not a universal computer, only a special purpose one. Is universal computation necessary for consciousness though? -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/9/2015 7:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. It is just a bunch of equations and we pick out the ones that work as descriptions and predictors. And if there aren't any that work, we try to invent some new ones. It baffles me that people think this produces unreasonable effectiveness. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The cimputation, as defined in computer science, is a the mathematical object provably existing in the same sense as the existence of prime numbers, What computer scientists like Turing and others have proven is that if matter is organized in a X manner then computations Y can be performed, but nobody, absolutely positively NOBODY has come withing a billion light years of figuring out how to add 1+1 without using matter and the laws of physics. John K Clark but to show a computation, we need to go through descriptions, and between physical being, we will use the physical means. That confusion level error that I want to prevent here would be the same as a guy saying that neurophysiology is absurd because all the theories on how the brain might function are using brain! On 09 May 2015, at 02:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:45:53PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact initial conditions Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. That is an interesting objection, but not one that's really relevant to the case at hand (distinguising dynamical chaos from teh FPI). and tell you what will be experienced next. And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. With FPI, Laplace's daemon cannot do that. Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega. daemons can answer gibberish questions. True, but you're implying that what my next experience is is a gibberish question, when it clearly isn't. What's more, I can find out just by waiting a bit. the third person answer will always be probabilistic. What I see in the first person not probabalistic. In physics everything is probabilistic and we live in a world governed by the laws of physics. It is definite, and I only need to wait around to find out. And Turing tells us that for some things, like figuring out if a program will stop, you'll have to wait around for a infinite, and not just astronomically large, number of years and even then you still won't find out if it stops or not. Sure - another difference between FPI and the Halting theorem. nobody knows how to make a Turing Machine or a computer or how to make one single calculation without using matter that operates according to the laws of physics. Maybe there is some other way to do it but if there is nobody knows what it is. IMHO, one can never know what it is made out of. That is equivalent to saying the blunders in Bruno's proof can never be repaired. Hardly - that is the result at step 7, nothing to do with your so-called blunders. IMHO, one can go there directly in one step, as it is a pretty obvious conclusion from the CT thesis. Pretty obvious? I agree that any finite program that terminates can be calculated on a Turing Machine, but there is in general no way to know if any given program will terminate or not, and nobody has the slightest idea how to make a Turing Machine, or even anything close to it, without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. What does that have to do with one can never know what it is made out of.? If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a Mac I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. So? Relevance? I also cannot tell if I'm am running Robinson arithmetic or SK combinators. the precise properties of the ontological material reality (Bruno primitive reality) are not
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 9 May 2015 at 18:08, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:23:57PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 9 May 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: Assuming a recording *can* be conscious (i.e. that the MGA's conclusion isn't absurd) then of course it can be. But such a recording is so large (probably consuming all the matter with the visible universe), how can you assert that it's consciousness is absurd? That is what you need to do to make the MGA work... Now you're doing what Brent does - repeating something that's more or less what I said, prefaced by but. I didn't assert it was absurd, I said assuming... To be fair, I didn't imply you were asserting it either. Just that one needed to assert it in order for the MGA to work. But I'm glad we're more or less in agreement :). Now this a genuine problem of pronouns (we and you are often used to refer to the impersonal one in English, which is not really a problem in French, for which on is always the appropriate choice). Yes, sorry. As a bear of little brain I tend to get a bit touchy about feeling I've been misunderstood, or (especially) thought to have professed views I don't hold, or wasn't holding at that point. Yes, there is a pronoun problem here - one normally overcomes this particular problem by using one :-) And yes I think we more or less agree on this one - intuition isn't too reliable when you're dealing with the consciousness that may or may not be embedded in books the size of the universe... (Sheesh! My friends would worry for my sanity if they knew I discuss things like this! At least I hope they would, and haven't already made their minds up...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that uses energy, takes time, and creates entropy. Well this is the so-called Aristotle-Plato thing again, isn't it? Since computation is allegedly implied by number theory, claiming it isn't an abstract process is the same as denying the objective existence to number theory (or, in an nutshell, denying that 2+2=4 independently of anyone knowing that it does). To prove your point you need to explain why maths is so unreasonably effective in the physical sciences, something I've long been hoping someone will do so I can stop wasting time worrying about whether I may be just a bunch of equations. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Fri, May 8, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. That is an interesting objection, but not one that's really relevant to the case at hand (distinguising dynamical chaos from teh FPI). Indeterminacy means uncertainty, maybe my senses just haven't given me enough information about the present to predict the future, or maybe the computation is so big that by the time I complete it the future will have already arrived, or maybe the trouble is the Halting Problem and there is no shortcut so if I want to know what the universe is going to throw at me next all I can do is wait and see. Or maybe it's just that some events have no cause. Any of this things will result in me (the first person) being uncertain (indeterminate) about the future. Bruno claims and you agree that he has found an additional source of uncertainty but neither of you can coherently elucidate exactly what it is. And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. Free will? Oh yes I remember now, that means not doing things because of cause and effect and not not doing things because of cause and effect. In other words free will means gibberish. I said it before I'll say it again, free will is a idea so bad its not even wrong. Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega. daemons can answer gibberish questions. True, but you're implying that what my next experience is is a gibberish question, And speaking of indeterminacy, in a copying machine or dovetailer scenario the identity of Mr. My is indeterminate so it is indeed a gibberish question. when it clearly isn't. What's more, I can find out just by waiting a bit. Who can find out just by waiting a bit? In the philosophy of personal identity personal pronouns have no place, they really REALLY suck! If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a Mac I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. So? Relevance? You tell me, you're the one who brought it up. UDA 1-7 shows that whatever the ultimate primitive reality is, properties of matter (ie physics) must only depend on the fact that the ultimate primitive reality is capable of universal computation. And the only thing ever found capable of universal computation, or capable of making a computation of any sort, is matter operating according to the laws of physics; nothing else has ever come close, nothing else can even add 1+1. As of today if the laws of physics are not involved nobody has ever been able to calculate ANYTHING. That's why people still make computer hardware. Bruno - can you provide a citation to John. He clearly doesn't believe you. I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to look at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who can add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a computer hardware company and crush the competition because our manufacturing costs are zero. I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate programs simultaneously, so what's your point? But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. Why not? Because then it would be experiencing being a mad person I see absolutely no reason why one piece of hardware, like one computer or one biological brain, couldn't run 2 completely separate programs that were both intelligent conscious and sane. in the context of Virtual Reality and a conscious AI program that can be stopped reset and rerun what does then and there mean? The coordinates of virtual space time, obviously. That sounds reasonable, therefore the
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 05:16:43PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Indeterminacy means uncertainty, maybe my senses just haven't given me enough information about the present to predict the future, or maybe the computation is so big that by the time I complete it the future will have already arrived, or maybe the trouble is the Halting Problem and there is no shortcut so if I want to know what the universe is going to throw at me next all I can do is wait and see. Or maybe it's just that some events have no cause. Any of this things will result in me (the first person) being uncertain (indeterminate) about the future. Bruno claims and you agree that he has found an additional source of uncertainty but neither of you can coherently elucidate exactly what it is. So you say. Nobody else here seems to agree, And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. Free will? Oh yes I remember now, that means not doing things because of cause and effect and not not doing things because of cause and effect. In other words free will means gibberish. I said it before I'll say it again, free will is a idea so bad its not even wrong. Hence I was rather surpised that you of all people suggested Laplace's daemon could influence Og in such a way that it could not predict Og's behaviour. No free will = deterministic behaviour. If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a Mac I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. So? Relevance? You tell me, you're the one who brought it up. No it was you. Your email citation tool is mucking up the attribution. UDA 1-7 shows that whatever the ultimate primitive reality is, properties of matter (ie physics) must only depend on the fact that the ultimate primitive reality is capable of universal computation. And the only thing ever found capable of universal computation, or capable of making a computation of any sort, is matter operating according to the laws of physics; nothing else has ever come close, nothing else can even add 1+1. Lots of things have been found capable of universal computation, including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. In fact physical systems are not capable of computation at all, without an observer to provide symbolic meaning to the activity. After all, what's going on in a PC or Mac are actually changes in analogue voltage levels, where the engineers designate certain voltage ranges as 0 or 1. (eg 1v means 0 and 2v means 1, with in between levels indeterminate). As of today if the laws of physics are not involved nobody has ever been able to calculate ANYTHING. That's why people still make computer hardware. Bruno - can you provide a citation to John. He clearly doesn't believe you. I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to look at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who can add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a computer hardware company and crush the competition because our ^^^ You can't have a computer _hardware_ company selling abstract computers!!! That's an oxymoron. manufacturing costs are zero. The problem is that all your customers will be abstract, so your revenue will probably also be zero. I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate programs simultaneously, so what's your point? But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. Why not? Because then it would be experiencing being a mad person I see absolutely no reason why one piece of hardware, like one computer or one biological brain, couldn't run 2 completely separate programs that were both intelligent conscious and sane. Yes, but that is not what is being discussed. Here, the persons involved are not _experiencing_ being two different persons simultaneously. You are confusing mind and brain. in the context of Virtual Reality and a conscious AI program that can be stopped reset and rerun what does then and there mean? The coordinates of virtual space time, obviously. That sounds reasonable, therefore the consciousness of the intelligent conscious program
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 10:24, LizR wrote: On 8 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote: This is why I draw the comparison with the Chinese room. If all the intelligence is encoded in a book, then intuition says that book cannot be conscious. This intuition is undoubtedly right for the sorts of books we're used to. But for a book that is much, much larger than the visible universe (which it would have to be to encode the intelligence needed to answer the questions in Chinese as a lookup table), then I think that intuition is very much doubtful. Consequently, the Chinese Room argument fails. This was Dan Dennett's point, IIRC. No, because the chinese room use only the program of the chinese man, not necessarily a giant look-up table. You don't need a huge look-up table (though I think that's how Searle implicitly described his set-up? ... it's been a long time since I last read The Mind's Eye) ... if you have a book that tells you how to simulate the Chinese man, then that book will also be huge, and normal intuition will fail. Similarly with the Einstein's Brain book in DRH's fable. A look-up table containing all counterfactuals would need to be infinite if it can be Turing universal. But a ginat looku-up table can be finite and approximate the local live of a finite machine for a finite time, but then it is a program (in a poor programming language) and the error of Searle will consist in the confusion of level: the thinking guy is the one doing the imitation, it is in the one being imitated. I can discuss with Einstein by imitating by hands its neurons an glial cells, but this does not mean I will agree with what *he* will told me. Consciousness is associated to the abstract relevant level. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 22:18, meekerdb wrote: On 5/8/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 May 2015, at 00:26, meekerdb wrote: On 5/6/2015 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote: You said the dovetailer leads to an irreduciable indeterminism, but if the machine is finite then a faster but still finite computer could predict what the dovetailer will do; it still could not of course predict what you will see nex Even worse it cannot predict even the probabilities that a given states of consciousness (or the universe as a whole) is followed by some other state, because the UD would have to reach a point from which it would not revisit the given state again and change the statistics of the successor states. But this is never the case for the non-terminating programs. Every state may be visited infinitely many times as the UD runs and so the statistics are always subject to change. Not at all. By the first person invariance for the delays, the statistics are defined at the limit. But that sounds like another instance of reversing the argument: There must be stable statistics in the limit because my theory is true and if there weren't stable statistics it wouldn't work. Exactly. We call that logic. IF comp then there is that statistics. Then AUDA shows how to get the logic of the measure one, and find three candidate wit already the quantization needed. But your wording seems a bit disingenuous, and incorrect. I never say that comp is true (comp1 is true), I say that comp implies physics is giuven by the stat on the sigma_1 sentences *as seen from* the first person points of view. I use then the fact that incompleteness guarantie the existence of those points of view, when we used the standard greek definitions (use by many modern). It is not my theory, and I am not among those saying that it is true (indeed for good reasons). But today, many believes in that theory, and I just shows the constructive and testable consequences. Bruno Brent Of course one may say there must be a class of states that are statistically stable and there must be a finite measure for them - but only if the theory is true. Which is the point. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 22:26, meekerdb wrote: On 5/8/2015 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 8 May 2015 at 10:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time? That is such a fantastically improbable outcome that Harry Potter universes are mundane occurrences, and we might as well admit magic into our explanations of reality. Seriously, in that case, all bets are off. Arguments based on intuition (such as the MGA) just fail under those circumstances. I don't think it is fantastically improbable; in fact, in an infinite universe it may be certain. And even if it is fantastically improbable, that does not invalidate the philosophical conclusions. Yes it does, if the philosophical conclusions are based on an intuition (which the MGA is). This is why I draw the comparison with the Chinese room. If all the intelligence is encoded in a book, then intuition says that book cannot be conscious. This intuition is undoubtedly right for the sorts of books we're used to. But for a book that is much, much larger than the visible universe (which it would have to be to encode the intelligence needed to answer the questions in Chinese as a lookup table), then I think that intuition is very much doubtful. Consequently, the Chinese Room argument fails. This was Dan Dennett's point, IIRC. No, because the chinese room use only the program of the chinese man, not necessarily a giant look-up table. The MGA will fail in exactly the same way, in the same circumstance. However, Bruno is quite clear that he doesn't rely on astronomically improbably event ocurring, so this is simply a side issue that needs pinching off. MGA is a definite proof that someone keeping comp and physical supervenience has to invoke non Turing emulable activity in the brain necessary for consciousness. This is not logically absurd, but is still *magic in the comp frame. They could as well invoke the Virgin Mary when they say yes to the doctor. Or they could invoke the continuum. A quite special one, different from the continuum implied by the comp hypothesis. But I'm interested in Russell's argument that the Chinese Room would have to be so big as to be absurd. ISTM it's not nearly as big as the UD. Is there some principle that rules out things that are to big or to improbable? Ultrafinitism. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 09 May 2015, at 01:59, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 8 May 2015 at 05:14, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: All computational supervenience gets you is that two counterfactually equivalent programs will generate the same conscious state. All bets are off with counterfactually inequivalent programs that nevertheless result in the same physical state. For that you additionally need physical supervenience. The whole business of the recording is how can that physical apparatus replaying the conscious moment actually be conscious, when it is not aware of the environment. As far as computationalism is concerned, the experienced moment has already been experienced, at some previous time and place (there and then). Replaying the recording makes no difference whatsoever. Yet the same sequence of physical states takes place, so in some sense by physical supervenience a new conscious moment is created. I don't think it can be, and I don't think this is what physical supervenience can actually mean. Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time? Assuming a recording *can* be conscious (i.e. that the MGA's conclusion isn't absurd) then of course it can be. But such a recording is so large (probably consuming all the matter with the visible universe), how can you assert that it's consciousness is absurd? That is what you need to do to make the MGA work... For the recording, its largeness is irrelevant. It is just not a computing device. Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 09 May 2015, at 02:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:45:53PM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact initial conditions Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. That is an interesting objection, but not one that's really relevant to the case at hand (distinguising dynamical chaos from teh FPI). and tell you what will be experienced next. And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. With FPI, Laplace's daemon cannot do that. Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega. daemons can answer gibberish questions. True, but you're implying that what my next experience is is a gibberish question, when it clearly isn't. What's more, I can find out just by waiting a bit. the third person answer will always be probabilistic. What I see in the first person not probabalistic. In physics everything is probabilistic and we live in a world governed by the laws of physics. It is definite, and I only need to wait around to find out. And Turing tells us that for some things, like figuring out if a program will stop, you'll have to wait around for a infinite, and not just astronomically large, number of years and even then you still won't find out if it stops or not. Sure - another difference between FPI and the Halting theorem. nobody knows how to make a Turing Machine or a computer or how to make one single calculation without using matter that operates according to the laws of physics. Maybe there is some other way to do it but if there is nobody knows what it is. IMHO, one can never know what it is made out of. That is equivalent to saying the blunders in Bruno's proof can never be repaired. Hardly - that is the result at step 7, nothing to do with your so- called blunders. IMHO, one can go there directly in one step, as it is a pretty obvious conclusion from the CT thesis. Pretty obvious? I agree that any finite program that terminates can be calculated on a Turing Machine, but there is in general no way to know if any given program will terminate or not, and nobody has the slightest idea how to make a Turing Machine, or even anything close to it, without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. What does that have to do with one can never know what it is made out of.? If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a Mac I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. So? Relevance? I also cannot tell if I'm am running Robinson arithmetic or SK combinators. the precise properties of the ontological material reality (Bruno primitive reality) are not accessible to us I don't need to know what the ultimate primitive reality is (assuming such a thing even exists), I just need to know the relative primitivity of physics and mathematics. Unless Bruno can show that mathematics is more primitive than matter and has found a way to make a calculation that doesn't involve physics his proof is just an exercise in circularity. UDA 1-7 shows that whatever the ultimate primitive reality is, properties of matter (ie physics) must only depend on the fact that the ultimate primitive reality is capable of universal computation. Assuming comp, of course, and robustness of the primitive reality (that a UD is supported). OK. With step UDA 1-7, you get the reversal with comp + there exist a primitive robust physical universe. That is why he says arithmetic suffices. Using a strong OCCAM razor,
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:23:57PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 9 May 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: Assuming a recording *can* be conscious (i.e. that the MGA's conclusion isn't absurd) then of course it can be. But such a recording is so large (probably consuming all the matter with the visible universe), how can you assert that it's consciousness is absurd? That is what you need to do to make the MGA work... Now you're doing what Brent does - repeating something that's more or less what I said, prefaced by but. I didn't assert it was absurd, I said assuming... To be fair, I didn't imply you were asserting it either. Just that one needed to assert it in order for the MGA to work. But I'm glad we're more or less in agreement :). Now this a genuine problem of pronouns (we and you are often used to refer to the impersonal one in English, which is not really a problem in French, for which on is always the appropriate choice). Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 03:00, LizR wrote: On 8 May 2015 at 07:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: When a recording of consciousness is played back does the consciousness exist during the playback or just when the computer was actually making calculations? If computationalism is true, and I think it is, then the answer to that question doesn't make any subjective difference whatsoever. Exactly. That was one of my points. It was? Well that simplifies things considerably because I was only trying to make 2 key points and that was one of them, the other was that Bruno's and your entire argument hinges on the existence of a computer made of MATTER that operates according to PHYSICAL law. Only to start with, however. Eventually, it purports to show that those assumptions are unnecessary. Not just unnecessary, but that they use primary matter as a god-of- the-gap, like the atheists usually criticize the creationist. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 07 May 2015, at 00:26, meekerdb wrote: On 5/6/2015 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote: You said the dovetailer leads to an irreduciable indeterminism, but if the machine is finite then a faster but still finite computer could predict what the dovetailer will do; it still could not of course predict what you will see nex Even worse it cannot predict even the probabilities that a given states of consciousness (or the universe as a whole) is followed by some other state, because the UD would have to reach a point from which it would not revisit the given state again and change the statistics of the successor states. But this is never the case for the non-terminating programs. Every state may be visited infinitely many times as the UD runs and so the statistics are always subject to change. Not at all. By the first person invariance for the delays, the statistics are defined at the limit. Of course one may say there must be a class of states that are statistically stable and there must be a finite measure for them - but only if the theory is true. Which is the point. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:21:10PM +1200, LizR wrote: Another possibility - suppose we develop AIs, and they boostrap themselves into benig vastly cleverer than us - might they not design conscious experiences that have never been experienced before directly, as an art form, say? Brave new world started this trend with the feelies. The trend might go something like Books and recorded/invented experiences reenacted live (plays etc) - primitive VR (lose yourself in a good book) Recorded sound Recorded vision Sound and vision Recordings of experiences through the senses (tapping into nerve channels) Ditto including emotions Ditto including thoughts All of the above, created de novo by artists and/or computer programmes There is no problem if created by computer programs. After all, COMP is the assumption that this is possible. What is the problem is if these new thoughties pop into existence on their own without any process leading up to them. That might be seen perhaps as a weakness of the Boltzman brain notion, but not of the arithmetical UD, which not only makes the programs, but respect a non trivial, purely computer science theoretical redundancy, giving sense to the measure, that we recover in the math part with the sigma_1 restriction. Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 8 May 2015 at 10:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time? That is such a fantastically improbable outcome that Harry Potter universes are mundane occurrences, and we might as well admit magic into our explanations of reality. Seriously, in that case, all bets are off. Arguments based on intuition (such as the MGA) just fail under those circumstances. I don't think it is fantastically improbable; in fact, in an infinite universe it may be certain. And even if it is fantastically improbable, that does not invalidate the philosophical conclusions. Yes it does, if the philosophical conclusions are based on an intuition (which the MGA is). This is why I draw the comparison with the Chinese room. If all the intelligence is encoded in a book, then intuition says that book cannot be conscious. This intuition is undoubtedly right for the sorts of books we're used to. But for a book that is much, much larger than the visible universe (which it would have to be to encode the intelligence needed to answer the questions in Chinese as a lookup table), then I think that intuition is very much doubtful. Consequently, the Chinese Room argument fails. This was Dan Dennett's point, IIRC. No, because the chinese room use only the program of the chinese man, not necessarily a giant look-up table. The MGA will fail in exactly the same way, in the same circumstance. However, Bruno is quite clear that he doesn't rely on astronomically improbably event ocurring, so this is simply a side issue that needs pinching off. MGA is a definite proof that someone keeping comp and physical supervenience has to invoke non Turing emulable activity in the brain necessary for consciousness. This is not logically absurd, but is still *magic in the comp frame. They could as well invoke the Virgin Mary when they say yes to the doctor. Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 08 May 2015, at 06:25, LizR wrote: On 8 May 2015 at 15:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:21:10PM +1200, LizR wrote: Another possibility - suppose we develop AIs, and they boostrap themselves into benig vastly cleverer than us - might they not design conscious experiences that have never been experienced before directly, as an art form, say? Brave new world started this trend with the feelies. The trend might go something like Books and recorded/invented experiences reenacted live (plays etc) - primitive VR (lose yourself in a good book) Recorded sound Recorded vision Sound and vision Recordings of experiences through the senses (tapping into nerve channels) Ditto including emotions Ditto including thoughts All of the above, created de novo by artists and/or computer programmes There is no problem if created by computer programs. After all, COMP is the assumption that this is possible. What is the problem is if these new thoughties pop into existence on their own without any process leading up to them. Only from the viewpoint of unlikelihood (about the same as the materialisation of a Boltzmann brain, I would imagine). But that doesn't make any difference to any philosophical implications! I agree. But it makes a huge difference for the math of the measure. Bruno however, yes, that was why I suggested an alternative mechanism that I think people may feel is more plausible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 8 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote: This is why I draw the comparison with the Chinese room. If all the intelligence is encoded in a book, then intuition says that book cannot be conscious. This intuition is undoubtedly right for the sorts of books we're used to. But for a book that is much, much larger than the visible universe (which it would have to be to encode the intelligence needed to answer the questions in Chinese as a lookup table), then I think that intuition is very much doubtful. Consequently, the Chinese Room argument fails. This was Dan Dennett's point, IIRC. No, because the chinese room use only the program of the chinese man, not necessarily a giant look-up table. You don't need a huge look-up table (though I think that's how Searle implicitly described his set-up? ... it's been a long time since I last read The Mind's Eye) ... if you have a book that tells you how to simulate the Chinese man, then *that *book will also be huge, and normal intuition will fail. Similarly with the Einstein's Brain book in DRH's fable. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact initial conditions Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're trying to predict. and tell you what will be experienced next. And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to predict. Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. With FPI, Laplace's daemon cannot do that. Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega. daemons can answer gibberish questions. the third person answer will always be probabilistic. What I see in the first person not probabalistic. In physics everything is probabilistic and we live in a world governed by the laws of physics. It is definite, and I only need to wait around to find out. And Turing tells us that for some things, like figuring out if a program will stop, you'll have to wait around for a infinite, and not just astronomically large, number of years and even then you still won't find out if it stops or not. nobody knows how to make a Turing Machine or a computer or how to make one single calculation without using matter that operates according to the laws of physics. Maybe there is some other way to do it but if there is nobody knows what it is. IMHO, one can never know what it is made out of. That is equivalent to saying the blunders in Bruno's proof can never be repaired. Hardly - that is the result at step 7, nothing to do with your so-called blunders. IMHO, one can go there directly in one step, as it is a pretty obvious conclusion from the CT thesis. Pretty obvious? I agree that any finite program that terminates can be calculated on a Turing Machine, but there is in general no way to know if any given program will terminate or not, and nobody has the slightest idea how to make a Turing Machine, or even anything close to it, without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a Mac I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. the precise properties of the ontological material reality (Bruno primitive reality) are not accessible to us I don't need to know what the ultimate primitive reality is (assuming such a thing even exists), I just need to know the relative primitivity of physics and mathematics. Unless Bruno can show that mathematics is more primitive than matter and has found a way to make a calculation that doesn't involve physics his proof is just an exercise in circularity. Bruno, on the other hand has TOEs for sale. As of today nobody's TOE is worth a bucket of warm spit, none of them work worth a damn. Pick one, any one, they'll all do your computations for you. No you pick one and then use it to calculate 2+2 for me without using matter or any of the laws of physics. we know that Bruno's Platonic integers have never been shown to be able to calculate anything, we have zero evidence they can do anything without physics, but we have an astronomical amount of evidence that matter operating according to the laws of physics can make calculations. I gather arithmetic has been proven capable of universal computation Nonsense. As of today if the laws of physics are not involved nobody has ever been able to calculate ANYTHING. That's why people still make computer hardware. I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate programs simultaneously, so what's your point? But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. Why not? it is important to delve into what supervenience_actually_ means You're the one who keeps using it so you tell me what supervenience _actually_ means. Conscious experience then and there supervenes on the recording just as much as the original computation I think
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 5/8/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 May 2015, at 00:26, meekerdb wrote: On 5/6/2015 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote: You said the dovetailer leads to an irreduciable indeterminism, but if the machine is finite then a faster but still finite computer could predict what the dovetailer will do; it still could not of course predict what you will see nex Even worse it cannot predict even the probabilities that a given states of consciousness (or the universe as a whole) is followed by some other state, because the UD would have to reach a point from which it would not revisit the given state again and change the statistics of the successor states. But this is never the case for the non-terminating programs. Every state may be visited infinitely many times as the UD runs and so the statistics are always subject to change. Not at all. By the first person invariance for the delays, the statistics are defined at the limit. But that sounds like another instance of reversing the argument: There must be stable statistics in the limit because my theory is true and if there weren't stable statistics it wouldn't work. Brent Of course one may say there must be a class of states that are statistically stable and there must be a finite measure for them - but only if the theory is true. Which is the point. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell Standish
On 9 May 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: Assuming a recording *can* be conscious (i.e. that the MGA's conclusion isn't absurd) then of course it can be. But such a recording is so large (probably consuming all the matter with the visible universe), how can you assert that it's consciousness is absurd? That is what you need to do to make the MGA work... Now you're doing what Brent does - repeating something that's more or less what I said, prefaced by but. I didn't assert it was absurd, I said assuming... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
