Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 May 2020, at 23:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/20/2020 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18 May 2020, at 21:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/18/2020 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
>> consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and their 
>> difference).
> 
> You frequently say this,
 
 Yes, it is the PhD content. 
 1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the 
 necessity of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic. 
 2) AUDA = the derivation itself.
 
> but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.
 
 Hand waving?
 
 Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.
 
 Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical theories, 
 three of them being concerned with the appearance of matter in arithmetic, 
 and so are testable, and indeed confirmed by all experiences until now.
>>> 
>>> They do not show the appearance of matter, the persistence of objects, the 
>>> shared reality.  You merely assume that they must...since otherwise your 
>>> theory doesn't work.
>> 
>> UDA explains that there is no other choice. It exposes the problem.
> 
> No, it simply asserts the problem follows from some axioms.

That is right, but the problem is solved constructively, so we can test the 
solution. And indeed, thanks to QM-without-collapse, we can say that Mechanism 
is vindicated by Nature.

Also, the axioms belongs to all theories rich enough to be Turing universal, 
which is already the case for the ultra-finitist presentation of arithmetic. 
(Nelson’s ultrafinitism starts from Robinson Arithmetic).

The physicalist solution seems to be obliged to put the first person, qualia, 
consciousness, under the rug, as it just cannot work without postulating a 
non-mechanist theory of mind, which still do not exist, unless speculation that 
gravity is consciousness and responsible for some wave packet reduction 
(Penrose).

Once you grasp that all computations are realised when we accept simple truth 
like the existence or inexsitence  of the solution of polynomial Diophantine 
equations, there is no more experimental evidence that a physical universe 
exists in any ontological sense, and doubly so, when the many-worlds aspect of 
nature confirms so well the many computations which provably are realised in a 
very tiny part of the arithmetical reality. 

The physicalist can still be right, so let us pursue the testing.That’s all. To 
make an ontological commitment at the start, is just non serious theology.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea772e6f-71c5-9852-694e-b7044a9c0401%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/16F3C462-176F-4ACD-B365-F491033E3C6D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/20/2020 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 18 May 2020, at 21:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/18/2020 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and 
their difference).


You frequently say this,


Yes, it is the PhD content.
1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the 
necessity of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic.

2) AUDA = the derivation itself.


but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.


Hand waving?

Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.

Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical 
theories, three of them being concerned with the appearance of 
matter in arithmetic, and so are testable, and indeed confirmed by 
all experiences until now.


They do not show the appearance of matter, the persistence of 
objects, the shared reality.  You merely assume that they 
must...since otherwise your theory doesn't work.


UDA explains that there is no other choice. It exposes the problem.


No, it simply asserts the problem follows from some axioms.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea772e6f-71c5-9852-694e-b7044a9c0401%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 May 2020, at 21:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/18/2020 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
 consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and their 
 difference).
>>> 
>>> You frequently say this,
>> 
>> Yes, it is the PhD content. 
>> 1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the 
>> necessity of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic. 
>> 2) AUDA = the derivation itself.
>> 
>>> but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.
>> 
>> Hand waving?
>> 
>> Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.
>> 
>> Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical theories, three 
>> of them being concerned with the appearance of matter in arithmetic, and so 
>> are testable, and indeed confirmed by all experiences until now.
> 
> They do not show the appearance of matter, the persistence of objects, the 
> shared reality.  You merely assume that they must...since otherwise your 
> theory doesn't work.

UDA explains that there is no other choice. It exposes the problem.

Then AUDA solves it at the propositional level, which is enough to see that 
measure exists and obey a quantum logics, and yes, this leads to an infinite 
sequence of open problems, which is normal for any "open science”.

Invoking an ontological commitment is not better than “God made it”. Even if 
false, it is interesting to discover that machine have a physics in arithmetic, 
and can test it. Up top now, Nature obeys the consequences of mechanism, so to 
invoke an ontological commitment (which is like a special propose oracle) is 
premature. Such an oracle explains everything, and it is like the alien in 
cosmology: we can appeal to them only on the last ressort.




> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I refer you to my two last papers(*), which contains also some difficult 
>> open problems.
>> You might try to ask specific questions.
>> 
>> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
>> Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 
>> 
> 
> A good example.  It's behind a paywall, but even the abstract shows that it 
> all aspirational.  Nothing is proven about matter except that "If I'm right 
> it must be provable.”

?

It is not "If I'm right it must be provable.”

It is If Mechanism is right, then physics becomes Z1* or S4Grz1, or X1*. Those 
are complete theories (well with the addition of the quantifier) sp let us just 
compare with Nature. 

If the physical laws does not appear in any of Z1*, X1* or S4Grz1, then 
Mechanism is refuted (up to some boring technical nuances). The degree of 
discrepancy provides a measurable degree of non-mechanism.  If physics appears 
in S4Grz1, then the reality is more idealist than we thought, and if it appears 
in Z1*, the physical reality is almost not idealist at all, despite remaining 
immaterial. 

The charge is reversed when we postulate mechanism. If you believe that a 
physical universe is needed to be assumed, then you have to explain how that 
works. I claim no truth, just that we can test this, and that quantum mechanics 
is by itself a very strong evidence for mechanism and its neopythagorean 
metaphysical consequences.



> 
> " We will explain that once we adopt the computationalist hypothesis, which 
> is a form of mechanist assumption, we have to derive from it how our belief 
> in the physical laws can emerge from *only* arithmetic and classical computer 
> science. In that sense we reduce the mind-body problem to a body problem 
> appearance in computer science, or in arithmeticThe main point is that 
> the derivation is constructive, and it provides the technical means to derive 
> physics from arithmetic, and this will make the computationalist hypothesis 
> empirically testable, and thus scientific in the Popperian analysis of 
> science."
> 
> 
>> 
>> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
>> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 
>> 
>> 
>> Now, if you read carefully the second part of my Sane04(*) or my “Plotinus 
>> paper" (larger public) talk, then, if you have   read some 
>> introduction to G and G*, like Smullyan “Forever Undecided” of better” 
>> Boolos 1979” or even better “Boolos   1993”, you have all the 
>> ingredient to proceed, and certainly to ask precise and specific question.
> 
> OK.  What's your definition of matter?


The usual definition (that is something made of elementary insurable entities 
which have 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/18/2020 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and 
their difference).


You frequently say this,


Yes, it is the PhD content.
1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the 
necessity of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic.

2) AUDA = the derivation itself.


but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.


Hand waving?

Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.

Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical theories, 
three of them being concerned with the appearance of matter in 
arithmetic, and so are testable, and indeed confirmed by all 
experiences until now.


They do not show the appearance of matter, the persistence of objects, 
the shared reality.  You merely assume that they must...since otherwise 
your theory doesn't work.






I refer you to my two last papers(*), which contains also some 
difficult open problems.

You might try to ask specific questions.

/*Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body 
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157
*/


A good example.  It's behind a paywall, but even the abstract shows that 
it all aspirational.  Nothing is proven about matter except that "If I'm 
right it must be provable."


" We will explain that*once we adopt the computationalist hypothesis*, 
which is a form of mechanist assumption, *we have to derive from it how 
our belief in the physical laws can emerge from *only* arithmetic* and 
classical computer science. In that sense we reduce the mind-body 
problem to a body problem appearance in computer science, or in 
arithmeticThe main point is that the derivation is constructive, and 
it provides the technical*means *to derive physics from arithmetic, and 
this*will make* the computationalist hypothesis empirically testable, 
and thus scientific in the Popperian analysis of science."




/*
Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993*/

Now, if you read carefully the second part of my Sane04(*) or my 
“Plotinus paper" (larger public) talk, then, if you have read some 
introduction to G and G*, like Smullyan “Forever Undecided” of better” 
Boolos 1979” or even better “Boolos 1993”, you have all the ingredient 
to proceed, and certainly to ask precise and specific question.


OK.  What's your definition of matter?

Brent



/*B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th 
International System Administration and Network Engineering 
Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
(sane04)

Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, 
Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe 
B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A., editors, Computation and Logic in the 
Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, 
pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento 
di Roberto Magari, 2007.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf*/

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39f9ebf7-7038-d236-7ddd-9436c04c3bc9%40verizon.net.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AE6D1F0C-E294-4541-B1DA-03C3147F44BB%40ulb.ac.be 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/513e1539-2817-f09d-3256-ca858fa2d16a%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
>> consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and their 
>> difference).
> 
> You frequently say this,

Yes, it is the PhD content. 
1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the necessity 
of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic. 
2) AUDA = the derivation itself.

> but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.

Hand waving?

Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.

Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical theories, three of 
them being concerned with the appearance of matter in arithmetic, and so are 
testable, and indeed confirmed by all experiences until now.

I refer you to my two last papers(*), which contains also some difficult open 
problems.
You might try to ask specific questions.

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

Now, if you read carefully the second part of my Sane04(*) or my “Plotinus 
paper" (larger public) talk, then, if you have read some introduction to G and 
G*, like Smullyan “Forever Undecided” of better” Boolos 1979” or even better 
“Boolos 1993”, you have all the ingredient to proceed, and certainly to ask 
precise and specific question.

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
(sane04)

Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of 
Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi 
A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on 
Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di 
Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39f9ebf7-7038-d236-7ddd-9436c04c3bc9%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AE6D1F0C-E294-4541-B1DA-03C3147F44BB%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist consciousness 
flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and their difference).


You frequently say this, but I have not seen this explanation except in 
vague hand waving.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39f9ebf7-7038-d236-7ddd-9436c04c3bc9%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 May 2020, at 23:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/7/2020 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I can imagine a materialist psychologist claiming that the natural numbers 
>> are not primitive but explainable by a cultural anthropo-evolutionary 
>> genetic, say. But 1) he is confusing the human natural number theories with 
>> arithmetic, and 2) he is cheating, as his explanation will make only sense 
>> by an implicit acceptance of some universal machinery equivalent to the 
>> belief in RA, so, he is just confusing level of explanation.
> 
> It's not confusion when you explain something in terms of what you 
> understand.  Confusion is to say things must be explained in terms of 
> something infinite and incomprhensible…

Not with mechanism. The assumption are just that Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz). In 
fact, with mechanism, we can explain why the axiom of infinity has to be false. 
Even, the induction axioms are possibly false ontologically. Mechanism, 
contrary of what I said a long time ago, is consistent with utltrafinithsm.





> and then claim it's incomprehensibility proves it's primitive because is 
> can't have an explanation.


That is provably the case for “simple" things like natural numbers and 
combinators, but is false for the appearance of matter as they are explained by 
the mechanist consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* 
and their difference).

Evidences for a physical reality are not the same as evidence for a primitive 
physical reality. That is the Aristotelian prejudice, which I think comes from 
a misunderstanding of Plato, or a lack of reasoning. 

There are tuns of evidences for a physical reality, and I understand the 
elegance and appeal the idea that such reality is primitive. 
Yet, I am rationalist and an empiricist. The close observation of the physical 
universe confirms that it cannot be primitive, like digital mechanism predicts.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> Yes, the human number theory is a fascinating subject, and it sustains the 
>> idea that 2+2=4 is “really absolutely” true, as all humans agree on this, 
>> and even many other mammals, actually. But that is a different subject 
>> matter than the one number theory is build for.  This one avoid the 
>> philosophy of numbers by using the axiomatic method. It should be obvious 
>> that with mechanism, the discovery of the numbers by the numbers is part of 
>> the meta-arithmetic that Gödel’s showed embeddable in arithmetic. The real 
>> bomb is still Gödel’s 1931, even if it is the two theorems of Solovay which 
>> sums it all in G, and G*.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27aed6d9-b0f1-80e1-93ca-29ed04d4257a%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00BDDFB5-7BCE-4273-B36A-E2AF6767FA5D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 May 2020, at 23:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/7/2020 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Existing is when the proposition “ExP(x)” is true in some reality. For 
>> example Ex(prime(x)) is true in the structure/model (N, 0, s, +, x).
> 
> "In some reality" completely drains "reality" of all meaning.  It simply 
> means some set of assertions that is not self-contradictory.

You are right. That follows from the completeness theorem. A (reasonable) 
theory is consistent iff it has a model (a reality which satisfies all the 
theorems). 

Now no machine can prove the existence of a reality satisfying all its belief, 
that is why we use terms like God, or “No-Name” or “Reality” with a big “R”. 
That sort of reality is no more model theory, but is theology, and the first 
theorem in Mechanist theologies is that we cannot define it, nor invoke it in 
arguments.

Here I was just using “reality” for “model”, as “model” when used by physicists 
means what logicians call “theories”.

So now I can deduce that by “it exist”, you refer to some metaphysical reality. 
You need to say which one to be precise. I suspect you mean the physical 
reality, but that early what is questioned when we assume mechanism, where the 
metaphysical reality is only (a part) of the arithmetical truth.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/40b5fb59-3729-c882-7dbd-e57a6f4dfaaf%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CE2F9F6A-94B6-442F-B60B-6562A2C506E1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 May 2020, at 17:19, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Do, 7. Mai 2020, um 16:30, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>> 
>>> On 6 May 2020, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am Mi, 6. Mai 2020, um 10:41, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
 
> On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
>> Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
>> identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, 
>> but non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: 
>> if mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the 
>> many computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model 
>> (as you prefer).
> And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
> reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
> believe.
 
 The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you 
 understand 2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations 
 are emulated in (all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is 
 assumed in all theories made by physicists. But when you add an 
 ontological physical universe, we have no mean to restrict the 
 statistics on all computations on the “physical” computations without 
 adding some magic in the theory.
 
 So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
 magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in 
 arithmetic.
 
 The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason 
 to believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive 
 status, which would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to 
 reject Darwinism, molecular biology, even most physical equations, 
 whose solutions when exploitable in nature are up to now always 
 computable.
 
 We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, 
 especially in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given 
 for it. But there are no evidence at all. People confuse the real 
 strong evidences for physical laws with evidence for laws who would be 
 primary. 
 
 You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are 
 not having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!) 
 emulate all computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles) 
 cannot feel the difference between being emulated by this or that 
 universal machinery.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I have no problem with any of what you say above.
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> What I have been wondering about is something else: what exactly is meant 
>>> by "primitive"? 
>> 
>> 
>> It depends on what you are interested in. To solve the mind-body 
>> problem, the first difficulty is to formulate it, and for this the 
>> notion of “primitiveness” is required, for what we will take for 
>> granted to proceed.
>> 
>> Basically X is considered as primitive if we have some reason to 
>> consider X as non explainable from something else, and judged as being 
>> more simple (technically/conceptually, … there is some matter of debate 
>> here of course).
> 
> Ok, but let me make the analogy with Copernicus' heliocentric model. It 
> provides a simpler model for planetary dynamics in the solar system than 
> assuming the earth at the center, but a more modern view on this debate is 
> that there is really no center anywhere in the universe. You just choose 
> whatever referential makes calculations easier.

It this not more “perspectival” or even “first person” centred. At the 
beginning, some thought that Earth was at the center of the universe. This 
meant that everything else was truly moving around us. Then we understood, that 
a simpler explanation (and also less anthropocentric) was that the Sun is a the 
center, and Earth go around it, and then we understood that even the Sun is 
revolving in a galaxy. We could have decided that our blackhole at the center 
of the Milky Way, is the “center” of the universe, but, as Kant suggested, 
there are other galaxies, etc… 
Today, we know that the “Big Bang” occurred everywhere, somehow, and that the 
notion of center of the (physical) universe might not make sense at all, but it 
is hard to say, as we can see only a tiny fraction of the physical universe, 
and have not yet a coherent theory of the whole, even restricted to the 
physical.

We have not much choice than to use Occam. The theory with the less hypotheses 
and the bigger range of prediction is the best one, until we find a simpler and 
more powerful one.



> 
> I wonder if primitiveness is not like that. I believe that consciousness 
> becomes irreducible if one takes matter as 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Do, 7. Mai 2020, um 16:30, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
> 
> > On 6 May 2020, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Am Mi, 6. Mai 2020, um 10:41, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
> >> 
> >>> On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
>  Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
>  identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, 
>  but non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: 
>  if mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the 
>  many computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model 
>  (as you prefer).
> >>> And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
> >>> reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
> >>> believe.
> >> 
> >> The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you 
> >> understand 2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations 
> >> are emulated in (all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is 
> >> assumed in all theories made by physicists. But when you add an 
> >> ontological physical universe, we have no mean to restrict the 
> >> statistics on all computations on the “physical” computations without 
> >> adding some magic in the theory.
> >> 
> >> So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
> >> magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in 
> >> arithmetic.
> >> 
> >> The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason 
> >> to believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive 
> >> status, which would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to 
> >> reject Darwinism, molecular biology, even most physical equations, 
> >> whose solutions when exploitable in nature are up to now always 
> >> computable.
> >> 
> >> We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, 
> >> especially in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given 
> >> for it. But there are no evidence at all. People confuse the real 
> >> strong evidences for physical laws with evidence for laws who would be 
> >> primary. 
> >> 
> >> You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are 
> >> not having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!) 
> >> emulate all computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles) 
> >> cannot feel the difference between being emulated by this or that 
> >> universal machinery.
> > 
> > Yes, I have no problem with any of what you say above.
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> > 
> > What I have been wondering about is something else: what exactly is meant 
> > by "primitive"? 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you are interested in. To solve the mind-body 
> problem, the first difficulty is to formulate it, and for this the 
> notion of “primitiveness” is required, for what we will take for 
> granted to proceed.
> 
> Basically X is considered as primitive if we have some reason to 
> consider X as non explainable from something else, and judged as being 
> more simple (technically/conceptually, … there is some matter of debate 
> here of course).

Ok, but let me make the analogy with Copernicus' heliocentric model. It 
provides a simpler model for planetary dynamics in the solar system than 
assuming the earth at the center, but a more modern view on this debate is that 
there is really no center anywhere in the universe. You just choose whatever 
referential makes calculations easier.

I wonder if primitiveness is not like that. I believe that consciousness 
becomes irreducible if one takes matter as primitive, and I agree that taking 
the integers as primitive and proceeding as you do provides a perspective to 
tackle the mind-body problem that simply is not available to materialism. At 
the same time, it makes it very hard to explain why this particular dream that 
I am experiencing has such and such specific features and patterns.

I guess I am in an extremely agnostic mood. Maybe it's the corona.

> Most materialist agrees that biology is explained, or explainable in 
> principle by chemistry, itself explainable by particles/force physics. 
> (And I agree with them on this). 

Btw, have you seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=makaJpLvbow

I love that simulation for several reasons. Firstly because I was involved in 
ALife / Complex Systems, and it is of course exciting to see such "biological" 
behavior emerging from such simple rules. But also because it exposes a certain 
emptiness in the idea of "explanation". It is not hard to imagine that one day 
Wolfram will be successful, and will be able to produce a simple rule that 
allows for complexity of the level we observe in the "real world". At the same 
time, I do not really feel that things 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 May 2020, at 11:12, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> Physicists nowadays assumes much more, like ZFC, to get a base in all Hilbert 
> space, for example. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> But in a real operational sense, that is not the case.
> 
> There is nothing in theoretical physics that is applied to matching what is 
> observed in experiments or telescopes that depends on anything more than what 
> programs of computational physics (computational/numerical relativity and 
> quantum mechanics) can produce today on supercomputers in university and 
> government labs.
> 
> Show me any observational data that would refute this.

A candidate is the measurement of a perfect quantum random bit. Anyway, digital 
physicalism is inconsistent, as it implies Mechanism, and Mechanism implies its 
falsity (my contribution), so computational physics, although very useful when 
doing physics, cannot be taken seriously in metaphysics (without elimination of 
person and consciousness, of course).

Bruno 




> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79cf1a58-4e9b-4ac7-9268-a015b5fedb30%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4B142487-D4E3-4DF1-8163-2355CD307600%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> Physicists nowadays assumes much more, like ZFC, to get a base in all 
> Hilbert space, for example. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
But in a real operational sense, that is not the case.

There is nothing in theoretical physics that is applied to matching what is 
observed in experiments or telescopes that depends on anything more than 
what *programs of computational physics* (computational/numerical 
relativity and quantum mechanics) can produce today on supercomputers in 
university and government labs.

Show me any observational data that would refute this.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79cf1a58-4e9b-4ac7-9268-a015b5fedb30%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/7/2020 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Existing is when the proposition “ExP(x)” is true in some reality. For example 
Ex(prime(x)) is true in the structure/model (N, 0, s, +, x).


"In some reality" completely drains "reality" of all meaning.  It simply 
means some set of assertions that is not self-contradictory.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/40b5fb59-3729-c882-7dbd-e57a6f4dfaaf%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/7/2020 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I can imagine a materialist psychologist claiming that the natural numbers are 
not primitive but explainable by a cultural anthropo-evolutionary genetic, say. 
But 1) he is confusing the human natural number theories with arithmetic, and 
2) he is cheating, as his explanation will make only sense by an implicit 
acceptance of some universal machinery equivalent to the belief in RA, so, he 
is just confusing level of explanation.


It's not confusion when you explain something in terms of what you 
understand.  Confusion is to say things must be explained in terms of 
something infinite and incomprhensible...and then claim it's 
incomprehensibility proves it's primitive because is can't have an 
explanation.


Brent


Yes, the human number theory is a fascinating subject, and it sustains the idea 
that 2+2=4 is “really absolutely” true, as all humans agree on this, and even 
many other mammals, actually. But that is a different subject matter than the 
one number theory is build for.  This one avoid the philosophy of numbers by 
using the axiomatic method. It should be obvious that with mechanism, the 
discovery of the numbers by the numbers is part of the meta-arithmetic that 
Gödel’s showed embeddable in arithmetic. The real bomb is still Gödel’s 1931, 
even if it is the two theorems of Solovay which sums it all in G, and G*.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27aed6d9-b0f1-80e1-93ca-29ed04d4257a%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 14:15, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The SSH 
> > 
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
> >  
> > 
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
> > 
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
> > 
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
> >  
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
> >  
> > 
> > etc. 
> > 
> > * or physicalist 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
> 
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
> that. 
> 
> Saibal 
> 
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.

Esher hands points on the usual third person self-reference is which computer 
science excels, as the theorem of Kleene completely explains constructively, 
and  the basic idea is already in the combinator Mx = xx, as MM will give MM, 
etc. For biology there is one more nuance to add, but I don’t want to be long. 
All that works in the realm of the third person beliefs.

But this self-reference does not make the link with the first person that you 
need for explaining consciousness and qualia.
As Gödel saw, the logic of that 3p self-reference obeys G, not a logic of 
knowledge S4.

In particular G does not prove []p ->p.

But that is why the Theatetus definition makes sense here. To define knowledge 
by true belief ([∏p & p), and arithmetic makes it possible to arithmeticize 
this without defining a predicate (which can be shown to NOT exist), so the 
logic of ([]p & p) which implies p trivially, provides a logic of a non 
nameable/3p-describable first person, obey a logic of knowledge, already with a 
temporal subjectivity (close to Brouwer and Bersgson).

That solves the consciousness part of the consciousness/matter problem.

Then, the matter problem is solved constructively by the restriction on the 
sigma_1 sentences (the leaves of the universal dpevtalg in arithmetic), and 
that can be tested, and indeed the test are already done for many part of it, 
and thanks to quantum logic, it fits rather well, and here too, we get a clear 
separation of quanta and qualia.





> I have far more confidence in physics


Me to. Only physics can test if physicalism is true or false, and the physical 
facts get until now favour mechanism and immaterialism, I would say. 

Mechanism looks mystical, and is in a great part, as he says that the “truth” 
is in your head, and nowhere else. But Mechanism is also empirical, as it says 
that the “physical truth” is in the head of all universal machine/number, so 
extract it and compare with what we observe. If it is different and 
incompatible,  mechanism is false (or we are in a normal second order 
simulation, but that is the conspiracy move, which can be made with any theory).



> than I do in hopeful ideas about qualia, which are psychological form of elan 
> vital thought in previous centuries to underlie biology.


Qualia are facts, even if hard to share. You cannot discard them as illusion. 
It is like a doctor saying to his patient that his pain is an illusion. That 
makes no sense.

Elan Vitale is a typical “religion from ignorance”: it is a theory saying that 
another theory cannot solve a problem. It is perhaps right, in the sense that 
we can call elementary arithmetic an élan vitale perhaps. But this reverse the 
charge, and primary matter is what looks like a “religion from ignorance”.

Elan vitale without more precision is like God without a precise (testable) 
theology. Molecular biology has eliminated it, rightly. 

And the same will happen with materialism and physicalism, because it does not 
work, eliminate consciousness and persons, and contradicts Mechanism for which 
tuns of evidences exist.

To sum up: élan vital is 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 May 2020, at 19:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/6/2020 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
 Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
 identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
 non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if 
 mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many 
 computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you 
 prefer).
>>> And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
>>> reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
>>> believe.
>> The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you 
>> understand 2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations are 
>> emulated in (all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is assumed in all 
>> theories made by physicists. But when you add an ontological physical 
>> universe, we have no mean to restrict the statistics on all computations on 
>> the “physical” computations without adding some magic in the theory.
> 
> Understanding is belief and being true is not the same as existing.


Existing is when the proposition “ExP(x)” is true in some reality. For example 
Ex(prime(x)) is true in the structure/model (N, 0, s, +, x).

And yes, understanding is belief. Nice point. 

In the machine theory you have that “God” does not exist, and is not even 
“mentionable”. (Like Plotinus).

What exist primitively are the natural numbers, 0, 1, 2, 3, … or with the usual 
notations: 0, s0, ss0, sss0, ….

Nothing else exist “ontologically” or “primitively”. I could chosen the 
combinators, or the game of life pattern, but most people are more familiar 
with the natural numbers, and that is a good simple universal machinery, as I 
assume 0, s0, … but also the RA axioms, and from this I can prove the existence 
of universal machines and computations, and also of universal machine believing 
in the induction axioms, which are the one I study.

Then for each self-rerential mode you have a notion of existence. Describable 
in the corresponding modal logic, like with []Ex[]P(x), or withe quantisation 
([]<>Ex([]<>P(x)), etc.


> 
>> 
>> So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
>> magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in arithmetic.
>> 
>> The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason to 
>> believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive status, which 
>> would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to reject Darwinism, 
>> molecular biology, even most physical equations, whose solutions when 
>> exploitable in nature are up to now always computable.
>> 
>> We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, 
>> especially in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given for 
>> it. But there are no evidence at all. People confuse the real strong 
>> evidences for physical laws with evidence for laws who would be primary.
> 
> A funny thing to say for someone who always invokes and ontological 
> committment to arithmetic.


How could you say yes to the digitalist doctor without hoping he will get the 
number right? 

You don’t need to believe that 0 exist in a metaphysical sense, you need just 
to introspect yourself and see if you agree with the usual axioms, i.e. 
classical logic and

1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

If you throw away any of those axioms, you lose Turing universality.

So if you believe that your computer exist, as a computer, you implicitly do 
that “ontological commitment” you seem to worry about.

The word “digital” as no meaning without the natural numbers.

Physicists nowadays assumes much more, like ZFC, to get a base in all Hilbert 
space, for example.

Then physicalist assumes much much much much more, like a primitive matter, or 
some universal numbers declared more important at the start, and that is 
refuted with mechanism.

Some people add metaphysics on the numbers, where, with mechanism, the number 
are introduced to be sure we understand the metaphysics which follows, from the 
number (G and G*) and eventually from the number + mechanism (G1 and G1*).

Physicist does not do metaphysics. Except in some paper of cosmology, or on 
foundation of QM, most physicist are metaphysically neutral. And when done with 
the scientific method, metaphysics itself must be done in a neutral way.

Bruno










> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are not 
>> having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 May 2020, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Mi, 6. Mai 2020, um 10:41, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>> 
>>> On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
 Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
 identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
 non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if 
 mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many 
 computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you 
 prefer).
>>> And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
>>> reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
>>> believe.
>> 
>> The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you 
>> understand 2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations 
>> are emulated in (all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is 
>> assumed in all theories made by physicists. But when you add an 
>> ontological physical universe, we have no mean to restrict the 
>> statistics on all computations on the “physical” computations without 
>> adding some magic in the theory.
>> 
>> So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
>> magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in 
>> arithmetic.
>> 
>> The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason 
>> to believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive 
>> status, which would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to 
>> reject Darwinism, molecular biology, even most physical equations, 
>> whose solutions when exploitable in nature are up to now always 
>> computable.
>> 
>> We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, 
>> especially in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given 
>> for it. But there are no evidence at all. People confuse the real 
>> strong evidences for physical laws with evidence for laws who would be 
>> primary. 
>> 
>> You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are 
>> not having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!) 
>> emulate all computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles) 
>> cannot feel the difference between being emulated by this or that 
>> universal machinery.
> 
> Yes, I have no problem with any of what you say above.

OK.


> 
> What I have been wondering about is something else: what exactly is meant by 
> "primitive"? 


It depends on what you are interested in. To solve the mind-body problem, the 
first difficulty is to formulate it, and for this the notion of “primitiveness” 
is required, for what we will take for granted to proceed.

Basically X is considered as primitive if we have some reason to consider X as 
non explainable from something else, and judged as being more simple 
(technically/conceptually, … there is some matter of debate here of course).

Most materialist agrees that biology is explained, or explainable in principle 
by chemistry, itself explainable by particles/force physics. (And I agree with 
them on this). 
Then if they are metaphysical materialist, they will have to explain psychology 
from biology, say, and usually they do believe that such an explanation is 
possible (and of course, we know or should know that this is impossible: but 
before judging this, it means that for a materialist (who believes that matter 
cannot be explained entirely from a simpler ontological assumption), if 
interested in the Mind-Body problem, he has to develop a phenomenology of mind 
coherent with its taking matter as primitive.

Similarly, a monist immaterialist (who assumes only immaterial relations, of 
the type mind or of the type number, or whatever) has to develop (extract, 
isolate, justify in a way or in another) a phenomenology of matter, or of 
matter conscious appearances in its theory of mind.

A dualist has a even harder task, as he will take both mind and matter as 
primitive, and will have to derive a phenomenology of interactions between 
both. Today, few (serious) people believe that this could be meaningful. 

 “materialism” is just naive physicalism: the idea that physics is the 
fundamental science. This makes matter into a primitive thing, and the theories 
will have to assume some primary physical elements, like atomes, or now, 
particles, or strings, etc.

Mechanism leads to a neutral monism, where neither matter, nor mind, is taken 
as primitive, as they are explained (wrongly or correctly, we might not it is 
wrong through new expriements)  from simpler (elementary arithmetic without 
induction).

The beauty here (grin) is that fr the natural numbers, or more generally, for 
the universal machinery/machines, we can prove in all inductive 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/6/2020 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if mechanism 
is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many computations in 
all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you prefer).

And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and reality...which 
has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to believe.

The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you understand 
2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations are emulated in 
(all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is assumed in all theories made 
by physicists. But when you add an ontological physical universe, we have no 
mean to restrict the statistics on all computations on the “physical” 
computations without adding some magic in the theory.


Understanding is belief and being true is not the same as existing.



So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in arithmetic.

The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason to 
believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive status, which 
would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to reject Darwinism, 
molecular biology, even most physical equations, whose solutions when 
exploitable in nature are up to now always computable.

We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, especially 
in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given for it. But there 
are no evidence at all. People confuse the real strong evidences for physical 
laws with evidence for laws who would be primary.


A funny thing to say for someone who always invokes and ontological 
committment to arithmetic.


Brent



You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are not 
having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!) emulate all 
computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles) cannot feel the 
difference between being emulated by this or that universal machinery.

Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc764642-dd49-70b2-e84f-363efe66582c%40verizon.net.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5810dae6-397d-887b-0d37-58271ac80d8c%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Lawrence Crowell]

Curious that so many images showed up. I guess this is good at drawing 
itself in more ways than one.

LC

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 7:26:00 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Mi, 6. Mai 2020, um 11:19, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 5:28:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 5 May 2020, at 17:36, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> As a strange loop consciousness may be an illusion having an illusion of 
> itself.
>
>
> I cannot make sense of this. How could consciousness be an illusion, as an 
> illusion is a conscious expérience. 
>
> [image: Escher # 10 - 8 x 10 Tee Shirt Iron On Transfer Hands]
> [image: Escher # 10 - 8 x 10 Tee Shirt Iron On Transfer Hands]
>
> [image: Escher hands drawing hands.jpg]
>
>
> Escher was great at drawing strange loops, as famously recognized by 
> Hofstadter.
>
> I certainly cannot argue at your level in theoretical physics (and I am 
> grateful for all I learn from your posts in this regard, and also Clark, 
> Brent and others). What I can't help but notice in this reply of yours is 
> that you seem to be aware of the deep problems, while at the same time 
> arguing that they are just an illusion somehow. I would even dare speculate 
> that you agree with Bruno, and mostly have a problem with certain terms he 
> uses.
>
> Best
> Telmo
>
>
>
> I can imagine myself dreaming that my bicycle is conscious, and then wake 
> up; that was an illusion. But I cannot imagine dreaming that I am 
> conscious, then waking up, and understanding that consciousness is an 
> illusion.
>
> I would say that consciousness is the fixed point of the doubt: it is the 
> only thing that I am unable to doubt. To doubt consciousness is non 
> sensical, like a circular square. 
>
> Only the content, and indeed all contents minus one exception 
> (consciousness itself), can be doubted (could be an illusion).
>
> When we postulate the Mechanist hypothesis, there is no ontological 
> phenomenological physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe 
> emerge from the statistics on all computations (a purely arithmetical 
> notion) going through “my” current state. That works in the sense that we 
> recover both the many-worlds/histories aspect of the observable, and the 
> quantum logical formalism, and the symmetries. Mechanism generalises 
> Noether theorem and Gleason theorem to arithmetic, and the laws of physics 
> becomes “machine independent”: they don’t depend on the choice of the 
> universal machinery that we have to postulate (to give sense to mechanism, 
> but also because we cannot deduce a universal machinery from anything non 
> universal).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> LC
>
> On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 6:17:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2020, at 15:00, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The SSH 
> > 
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
> > 
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
> > 
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
> > 
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > etc. 
> > 
> > * or physicalist 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
>
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
> that. 
>
> Saibal 
>
>
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>
>
> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
>
>
> Yes. Consciousness cannot be an illusion, as a genuine illusion needs 
> consciousness. LC’s remark does not makes sense. It looks like the usual 
> physicalist attempt to put the mind-body problem under the rug.
>
> With mechanism, it is the PRIMITIVE physical universe which is an 
> illusion, and up to now, that illusion is explained by the number relation, 
> except for our belief in numbers, which is still completely explained as 
> being 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 May 2020, at 21:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/5/2020 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4 May 2020, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
 
 
 Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
 >>> > a écrit :
 On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
 On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
 > The SSH 
 > 
 >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
 >  
 > 
 > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
 > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
 > 
 > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
 > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
 > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
 > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
 > 
 > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
 >  
 > 
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
 > 
 >  
 > 
 > etc. 
 > 
 > * or physicalist 
 > 
 > @philipthrift 
 
 Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
 philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
 physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
 fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
 engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
 pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
 theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
 a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
 consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
 that. 
 
 Saibal 
 
 I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
 have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
 qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
 centuries to underlie biology.
 
 Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something 
 (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it 
 miss the things it purpose to explain.
 
 When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't 
 see how that could be explained away... 
 
>>> 
>>> I think the problem here is with the word "explain".   Yes, physics will 
>>> never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or gravity, or 
>>> entropy either.  Physics is regarded as successful because it makes good 
>>> predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  Look at the 
>>> controversy over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  We have 
>>> drastically different "explanations" of what is happening...which have zero 
>>> effect on the application or usefulness of the theory.  And that's exactly 
>>> the same situation with regard to consciousness and qualia.  Chemistry and 
>>> biology have a lot of of good "explanations" of quale in the sense of being 
>>> able to predict them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's no where near as deep 
>>> as physics explanations which reach down to sub-atomic level.  But physics 
>>> aims for depth and bypasses the complex problems of biology as accidents of 
>>> evolution, mere geography problems.  There's no reason to suppose that 
>>> chemistry and molecular biology and study of brain structure
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> and AI will not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness. 
>> 
>> Once you invoke AI or mechanism, the deep explanation will have to reduce 
>> physics to some mathematics (indeed to G* intensional variant). Or it brings 
>> magical ontological commitment just to hide ignorance, and that is bad 
>> religion/philosophy.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> And it still won't "explain" quale,
>> 
>> Where Mechanism does.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> but it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI and people will forget 
>>> all about how mysterious they were...just like they have forgotten elan 
>>> vitale.
>> 
>> Even the AI will not been convinced by this. The élan vitale does not 
>> explain one thing.
> 
> Right.  And neither does "mechanism”.


?

Without Mechanism, Darwin’s theory of evolution stops working.

To negate Mechanism, you need to add magic in the brain.

Diderot consider (right Imo) that Mechanism is the same as rationalism.

Newton’s dynamic was 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Mi, 6. Mai 2020, um 10:41, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
> 
> > On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
> >> Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
> >> identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
> >> non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if 
> >> mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many 
> >> computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you 
> >> prefer).
> > And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
> > reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
> > believe.
> 
> The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you 
> understand 2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations 
> are emulated in (all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is 
> assumed in all theories made by physicists. But when you add an 
> ontological physical universe, we have no mean to restrict the 
> statistics on all computations on the “physical” computations without 
> adding some magic in the theory.
> 
> So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
> magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in 
> arithmetic.
> 
> The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason 
> to believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive 
> status, which would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to 
> reject Darwinism, molecular biology, even most physical equations, 
> whose solutions when exploitable in nature are up to now always 
> computable.
> 
> We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, 
> especially in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given 
> for it. But there are no evidence at all. People confuse the real 
> strong evidences for physical laws with evidence for laws who would be 
> primary. 
> 
> You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are 
> not having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!) 
> emulate all computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles) 
> cannot feel the difference between being emulated by this or that 
> universal machinery.

Yes, I have no problem with any of what you say above.

What I have been wondering about is something else: what exactly is meant by 
"primitive"? Does there have to be any X such that "primitive X" is true? This 
is a real question, not a rhetorical one.

Hope that you (and everyone else) are doing well!
Telmo

> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Brent
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc764642-dd49-70b2-e84f-363efe66582c%40verizon.net.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/965BBF35-DF8E-4F03-AF43-F9B0D843A1A3%40ulb.ac.be.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/96161ef4-ce79-43e0-98a0-288cff950049%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 May 2020, at 21:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
>> Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
>> identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
>> non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if 
>> mechanism is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many 
>> computations in all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you 
>> prefer).
> And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
> reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
> believe.

The existence of all computations is a theorem of arithmetic. If you understand 
2+2=4 and similar, you can understand that all computations are emulated in 
(all) model(s) of arithmetic. That arithmetic is assumed in all theories made 
by physicists. But when you add an ontological physical universe, we have no 
mean to restrict the statistics on all computations on the “physical” 
computations without adding some magic in the theory.

So, it seems you are the one adding an ontological commitment, to make 
magically disappear the consciousness of the relative number in arithmetic.

The reason to believe this is just Mechanism. I have not find a reason to 
believe in a physical universe having an ontological primitive status, which 
would be a reason to believe in non-mechanism (and to reject Darwinism, 
molecular biology, even most physical equations, whose solutions when 
exploitable in nature are up to now always computable.

We just can’t invoke an ontological commitment when we do science, especially 
in theology or metaphysics, unless some evidences are given for it. But there 
are no evidence at all. People confuse the real strong evidences for physical 
laws with evidence for laws who would be primary. 

You seem to have understood this better sometimes ago. I Hope you are not 
having any doubt that the arithmetical reality (not the theories!) emulate all 
computations, and that a universal machine (with oracles) cannot feel the 
difference between being emulated by this or that universal machinery.

Bruno






> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc764642-dd49-70b2-e84f-363efe66582c%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/965BBF35-DF8E-4F03-AF43-F9B0D843A1A3%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 May 2020, at 17:36, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> As a strange loop consciousness may be an illusion having an illusion of 
> itself.

I cannot make sense of this. How could consciousness be an illusion, as an 
illusion is a conscious expérience. 

I can imagine myself dreaming that my bicycle is conscious, and then wake up; 
that was an illusion. But I cannot imagine dreaming that I am conscious, then 
waking up, and understanding that consciousness is an illusion.

I would say that consciousness is the fixed point of the doubt: it is the only 
thing that I am unable to doubt. To doubt consciousness is non sensical, like a 
circular square. 

Only the content, and indeed all contents minus one exception (consciousness 
itself), can be doubted (could be an illusion).

When we postulate the Mechanist hypothesis, there is no ontological 
phenomenological physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe 
emerge from the statistics on all computations (a purely arithmetical notion) 
going through “my” current state. That works in the sense that we recover both 
the many-worlds/histories aspect of the observable, and the quantum logical 
formalism, and the symmetries. Mechanism generalises Noether theorem and 
Gleason theorem to arithmetic, and the laws of physics becomes “machine 
independent”: they don’t depend on the choice of the universal machinery that 
we have to postulate (to give sense to mechanism, but also because we cannot 
deduce a universal machinery from anything non universal).

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 6:17:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 4 May 2020, at 15:00, Telmo Menezes > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>>> > The SSH 
>>> > 
>>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>>> >  
>>> > 
>>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>>> > 
>>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>>> > 
>>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>>> >  
>>> > 
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>>> >  
>>> > 
>>> > etc. 
>>> > 
>>> > * or physicalist 
>>> > 
>>> > @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>>> that. 
>>> 
>>> Saibal 
>>> 
>>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>> 
>> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
> 
> Yes. Consciousness cannot be an illusion, as a genuine illusion needs 
> consciousness. LC’s remark does not makes sense. It looks like the usual 
> physicalist attempt to put the mind-body problem under the rug.
> 
> With mechanism, it is the PRIMITIVE physical universe which is an illusion, 
> and up to now, that illusion is explained by the number relation, except for 
> our belief in numbers, which is still completely explained as being 
> necessarily not explainable from less (or equivalent). That is why I claim 
> that mechanism does solve the mind body problem, where adding infinities in 
> the physical world just suggest a non mechanist theory of mind, which add 
> difficulties without reason.
> 
> There are no evidence for a primitive physical universe. There strong 
> evidence for the existence of a physical universe or physical reality, but no 
> evidence for its pirmaryness, as the antic greek understood very well, when 
> inventing Mathematics (a mathematician was a pholospher skeptic about he 
> physicalness of the absolute reality).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Telmo.
>> 
>>> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>>> centuries to 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/5/2020 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 4 May 2020, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
> a écrit :


On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
> The SSH
>
> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>
> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics
today.(IT
> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of
idealism.
>
> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions,
forces - but
> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth
force/field).
>
>
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

>
> etc.
>
> * or physicalist
>
> @philipthrift

Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness
and other
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go
theorems against
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these
problems in one
fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories
as people
engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily
advertise their
pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases
physicalist
theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would
like to see
a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument
that it is
consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more
detail than just
that.

Saibal 



I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are
illusions. I have far more confidence in physics than I do in
hopeful ideas about qualia, which are psychological form of elan
vital thought in previous centuries to underlie biology.


Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean 
something (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot 
account for that, it miss the things it purpose to explain.


When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I 
don't see how that could be explained away...




I think the problem here is with the word "explain". Yes, physics 
will never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or 
gravity, or entropy either. Physics is regarded as successful because 
it makes good predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  
Look at the controversy over the interpretation of quantum 
mechanics.  We have drastically different "explanations" of what is 
happening...which have zero effect on the application or usefulness 
of the theory.  And that's exactly the same situation with regard to 
consciousness and qualia.  Chemistry and biology have a lot of of 
good "explanations" of quale in the sense of being able to predict 
them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's no where near as deep as 
physics explanations which reach down to sub-atomic level.  But 
physics aims for depth and bypasses the complex problems of biology 
as accidents of evolution, mere geography problems.  There's no 
reason to suppose that chemistry and molecular biology and study of 
brain structure


OK.




and AI will not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness.


Once you invoke AI or mechanism, the deep explanation will have to 
reduce physics to some mathematics (indeed to G* intensional variant). 
Or it brings magical ontological commitment just to hide ignorance, 
and that is bad religion/philosophy.





And it still won't "explain" quale,


Where Mechanism does.




but it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI and people will 
forget all about how mysterious they were...just like they have 
forgotten elan vitale.


Even the AI will not been convinced by this. The élan vitale does not 
explain one thing.


Right.  And neither does "mechanism".

The qualia are just unavoidable data, which, when we suppose mechanism 
are easier to explain, and indeed already explains the existence of 
quanta as first person sharable qualia.


Mechanism explains, in a coherent and testable way, why we feel like 
if there was a material reality, and a mental reality.


No it doesn't.  You just say it must.  It does not explain why you and I 
agree on what this sentence says.


Adding a magical primitive matter makes that explanation no more 
working, so why to add it?


Every time I refer to matter in an explanation, you falsely accuse me of 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/5/2020 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Physics works very well, to make prediction but as metaphysics, as the 
Platonist greeks understood, it simply does not work at all. It uses an 
identity thesis between mind and brain which is easy in one direction, but 
non-sensical in the other direction. It is not a matter of choice: if mechanism 
is true, the many physical histories must emerges from the many computations in 
all models of arithmetic, or in the standard model (as you prefer).
And you use the identity theory of all possible computation and 
reality...which has no evidence in support of it and I see no reason to 
believe.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc764642-dd49-70b2-e84f-363efe66582c%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Lawrence Crowell]

As a strange loop consciousness may be an illusion having an illusion of 
itself.

LC

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 6:17:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2020, at 15:00, Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The SSH 
> > 
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
> > 
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
> > 
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
> > 
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > etc. 
> > 
> > * or physicalist 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
>
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
> that. 
>
> Saibal 
>
>
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>
>
> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
>
>
> Yes. Consciousness cannot be an illusion, as a genuine illusion needs 
> consciousness. LC’s remark does not makes sense. It looks like the usual 
> physicalist attempt to put the mind-body problem under the rug.
>
> With mechanism, it is the PRIMITIVE physical universe which is an 
> illusion, and up to now, that illusion is explained by the number relation, 
> except for our belief in numbers, which is still completely explained as 
> being necessarily not explainable from less (or equivalent). That is why I 
> claim that mechanism does solve the mind body problem, where adding 
> infinities in the physical world just suggest a non mechanist theory of 
> mind, which add difficulties without reason.
>
> There are no evidence for a primitive physical universe. There strong 
> evidence for the existence of a physical universe or physical reality, but 
> no evidence for its pirmaryness, as the antic greek understood very well, 
> when inventing Mathematics (a mathematician was a pholospher skeptic about 
> he physicalness of the absolute reality).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Telmo.
>
> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
> centuries to underlie biology.
>
> LC
>
>
> --
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb72afca-3b77-447d-88d2-65286e0fe542%40www.fastmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af4d2e45-79e5-4b4d-8e82-fb19fa3d339b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
>> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
>> a écrit :
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>> 
>> Saibal 
>> 
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
>> have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about qualia, 
>> which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous centuries to 
>> underlie biology.
>> 
>> Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something 
>> (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it 
>> miss the things it purpose to explain.
>> 
>> When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't 
>> see how that could be explained away... 
>> 
> 
> I think the problem here is with the word "explain".   Yes, physics will 
> never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or gravity, or 
> entropy either.  Physics is regarded as successful because it makes good 
> predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  Look at the controversy 
> over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  We have drastically different 
> "explanations" of what is happening...which have zero effect on the 
> application or usefulness of the theory.  And that's exactly the same 
> situation with regard to consciousness and qualia.  Chemistry and biology 
> have a lot of of good "explanations" of quale in the sense of being able to 
> predict them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's no where near as deep as 
> physics explanations which reach down to sub-atomic level.  But physics aims 
> for depth and bypasses the complex problems of biology as accidents of 
> evolution, mere geography problems.  There's no reason to suppose that 
> chemistry and molecular biology and study of brain structure

OK.



> and AI will not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness. 

Once you invoke AI or mechanism, the deep explanation will have to reduce 
physics to some mathematics (indeed to G* intensional variant). Or it brings 
magical ontological commitment just to hide ignorance, and that is bad 
religion/philosophy.



> And it still won't "explain" quale,

Where Mechanism does.




> but it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI and people will forget 
> all about how mysterious they were...just like they have forgotten elan 
> vitale.

Even the AI will not been convinced by this. The élan vitale does not explain 
one thing. The qualia are just unavoidable data, which, when we suppose 
mechanism are easier to explain, and indeed already explains the existence of 
quanta as first person sharable qualia. 

Mechanism explains, in a coherent and testable way, why we feel like if there 
was a material reality, and a mental reality. Adding a magical primitive matter 
makes that explanation no more working, so why to add it?

The goal is not to replaced physics by some better predictive science, except 
for the afterlife problem, where, with some exception like Tipler, is not part 
of the physical inquiry, but of metaphysics, and the point is that with 
mechanism, any Aristotelian theories cannot 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 19:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/4/2020 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2020, at 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:
 On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
> The SSH
> 
>   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
> 
> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
> 
> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
> 
> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
> 
> etc.
> 
> * or physicalist
> 
> @philipthrift
 Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
 philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
 physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell 
 swoop.
>>> Really?  What are 'all these problems that are solved’?
>> A reduction of why there is something to the existence of arithmetic + an 
>> explanation of why it is possible to explain arithmetic from less.
> 
> "Reduction of there is something to the existence of arithmetic"?? I can't 
> even parse what problem that is…


It is the reduction of the problem “why is there a moon, where does atoms come 
from?”, but also “why does it hurts” to the problem of justifying the physical 
laws from pure arithmetic.






> much less how you have solved it. 

I can help if you tell me at which points you don’t understand, without 
invoking your ontological commitment, of course.





> William S. Cooper has a good explanation from evolution.


Evolution explain the origin of brain, and of the human mind. If you like that 
explanation, you are in trouble, as Darwin’s theory of evolution assume 
Mechanism (it even force digital mechanism, and the finite encoding of 
biological information, which has been confirmed by molecular biology, which is 
the roots of my motivation for studying Mechanism, and mathematical logic, 
which discovered the digital version of mechanism).

But you might also be happy, as the theory of evolution is not refuted by 
mechanism, but extended to the origine of the physical laws, assuming only 
elementary arithmetic (x + 0 = x, etc.).




> 
>> 
>> Then the mind body problem, including why there are physical laws, and this 
>> from a “simple” theory of consciousness. Here physics is unable to predict 
>> why we see an eclipse when we use physics to predict an eclipse.
> 
> But physics can predict why we don't see an eclipse if we look the wrong 
> direction or if we wear a hood or if we close our eyes or if our optic nerve 
> is damaged.  None of which are explained by your theory.

It is not my theory. It is the theory of all universal machine “riche enough to 
believe in the arithmetical induction axiom (that is their own behaviour”.

Up to now, it is confirmed by nature, where physicalism is simply refuted or 
needs some string non-mechanist axiom.



> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Does it explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious?
>> That is what mechanism explains the best.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Does it explain how anesthesia works?
>> 
>> Certainly better than particles physics. But ye, it does not solve all 
>> problems. It formulates them, and we have to solve them one by one, like 
>> always in science.
> 
> In the meantime, chemisty does explain how anesthesia works.

It does not. You need a solution of the mind-body problem to solve the 
anaesthesia working problem. Chemistry just allow us to infer many useful 
things, but to stop there and simps the “hard problem” is just like the 
instrumentalist “shut up and calculate”.



>   And the explanation is based on the theory that consciousness in produced 
> by the brain


OK. But how? Certainly not in a Turing emulable way. A god (personal or 
impersonal) cannot be invoked in an explanation, at east with Mechanism. How 
could such a god select the conscious computations in arithmetic. If that is 
possible, then digital machines are zombies, and Digital Mechanism has to be 
abandoned. 



> and depends on the diffusion of hormones across synaptic gaps.


Contingently. That is like saying that deep blue win the hess game thanks to 
the laws of Ohm, Faraday, which we know to be non relevant (Deep Blue would 
have win also when implemented with Babbage clock-wheel type of machine, or in 
arithmetic, etc.).




> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia?  Drunkeness?  Does it explain the 
>>> evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 16:39, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self-reference" in programming - going back to Brian Smith's 3-Lisp
> 
>http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar19_86/p19-smith.pdf 
> 
> 
> - is a bit not-quite-real in the context of "The Self" of consciousness 
> (self) realism (Galen Strawson). 
> 
>
> http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/Self.pdf
>  
> 

Brain smith theory is basically the same theory as the theory of Gödel’s 
beweisbar (he is aware of this).

But he missed the platonic nuances, which I explained either through tough 
experiment, or using the greek definitions (as they anticipated all this 
through the “dream argument”t).

The platonic nuances are imposed by incompleteness. Although it is true 
(provable in G*) that []p, []p & p, ..; are all equivalent (see the same 
portion of the arithmetical reality), the machine cannot see those equivalence, 
and from the machine’s point of view, they are not equivalent, and indeed less 
to a different logic and mathematics for each one of those. []p obeys a logic 
of credibility, []p & p obeys a (intuitionist) logic of knowledge, []p & <>p 
obeys a quantum logic, []p & <>t & p obeys a quantum institionist logic, at the 
G* level.

All this are theorem in arithmetic, and obtained by any arithmetically sound 
universal machine numbers. 

Some people missed that all computation are emulated (semantically) in all 
models of elementary arithmetic. We know that since the 1930s.

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:59:04 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> Self-reference is a case where the computation is not complete or can't be 
> quantified. We might then consider consciousness as a strange-loop where the 
> process can't be quantified, or any attempt to do so will always exceed the 
> capacity of the processor.
> 
> LC
> 
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>> 
>> Saibal 
>> 
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
> 
> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
> 
> Telmo.
> 
>> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>> centuries to underlie biology.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9597f679-52f6-4504-9004-04e1fe45e61b%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 15:00, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>> 
>> Saibal 
>> 
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
> 
> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?

Yes. Consciousness cannot be an illusion, as a genuine illusion needs 
consciousness. LC’s remark does not makes sense. It looks like the usual 
physicalist attempt to put the mind-body problem under the rug.

With mechanism, it is the PRIMITIVE physical universe which is an illusion, and 
up to now, that illusion is explained by the number relation, except for our 
belief in numbers, which is still completely explained as being necessarily not 
explainable from less (or equivalent). That is why I claim that mechanism does 
solve the mind body problem, where adding infinities in the physical world just 
suggest a non mechanist theory of mind, which add difficulties without reason.

There are no evidence for a primitive physical universe. There strong evidence 
for the existence of a physical universe or physical reality, but no evidence 
for its pirmaryness, as the antic greek understood very well, when inventing 
Mathematics (a mathematician was a pholospher skeptic about he physicalness of 
the absolute reality).

Bruno



> 
> Telmo.
> 
>> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>> centuries to underlie biology.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb72afca-3b77-447d-88d2-65286e0fe542%40www.fastmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6AAB4946-3BA5-4D5A-B9C1-149412423D09%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 15:27, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
> a écrit :
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The SSH 
> > 
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
> >  
> > 
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
> > 
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
> > 
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
> >  
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
> >  
> > 
> > etc. 
> > 
> > * or physicalist 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
> 
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
> that. 
> 
> Saibal 
> 
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
> have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about qualia, 
> which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous centuries to 
> underlie biology.
> 
> Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something 
> (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it 
> miss the things it purpose to explain.
> 
> When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't see 
> how that could be explained away… 

Yes, LC’s comment  is self-refuting. 

Bruno



> 
> Quentin
> 
> 
> LC
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
> Hauer)
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAoznb2X48gQq0domodP-%3DKU84o4VwZKtOw6xRSqLJJYtw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AFA0BAE8-C28F-45A0-9E8C-33DC70ABDE2F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[smitra]

On 04-05-2020 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:

The SSH

  https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247

still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.

It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth 
force/field).


http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

etc.

* or physicalist

@philipthrift


Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
fell swoop.


Really?  What are 'all these problems that are solved'?  Does it
explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious?  Does it
explain how anesthesia works?  Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia? 
Drunkeness?  Does it explain the evocation of memories by
electrostimulation of the brain?  Dementia?  Childhood amnesia?

Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X, so by
rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.

Brent


Physics has left these issues well behind. Finding evidence for 
supersymmetry, the nature of dark matter, evidence for proton decay will 
not shed much light on what the subjective experience of experiencing 
pain exactly is. This strongly suggests that physics as applied to 
everyday phenomena is (almost) exactly correct from a mathematical point 
of view, but that there is an issue with the explanation of the 
phenomena. One then cannot test any alternative explanation as this will 
have to reduce to the same mathematical theory when used to predict the 
outcome of experiments.


I.m.o., the best place to start is by taking physics itself seriously 
and not throw parts of it away on the grounds that FAPP certain things 
at the macro-level work like certain classical models and that therefore 
a, say, human being is exactly what these effective laws describe.


Saibal



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07c36ba203b8f20fc2197575b47cce92%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:47:41 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell  > a écrit :
>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>>> > The SSH 
>>> > 
>>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>>> > 
>>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>>> > 
>>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>>> > 
>>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>>> > 
>>> > etc. 
>>> > 
>>> > * or physicalist 
>>> > 
>>> > @philipthrift 
>>>
>>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>>> that. 
>>>
>>> Saibal 
>>
>>
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
>> have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>> centuries to underlie biology.
>>
>
> Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something 
> (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it 
> miss the things it purpose to explain.
>
> When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't 
> see how that could be explained away... 
>
>
> I think the problem here is with the word "explain".   Yes, physics will 
> never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or gravity, or 
> entropy either.  Physics is regarded as successful because it makes good 
> predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  Look at the 
> controversy over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  We have 
> drastically different "explanations" of what is happening...which have zero 
> effect on the application or usefulness of the theory.  And that's exactly 
> the same situation with regard to consciousness and qualia.  Chemistry and 
> biology have a lot of of good "explanations" of quale in the sense of being 
> able to predict them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's no where near as deep 
> as physics explanations which reach down to sub-atomic level.  But physics 
> aims for depth and bypasses the complex problems of biology as accidents of 
> evolution, mere geography problems.  There's no reason to suppose that 
> chemistry and molecular biology and study of brain structure and AI will 
> not reach the same depth of explanation of consciousness.  And it still 
> won't "explain" quale, but it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI 
> and people will forget all about how mysterious they were...just like they 
> have forgotten elan vitale.
>
> Brent
>
>
If we can program "matter" (or whatever we want to call it) to *accomplish 
t goals* we want

 
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/04/24/substrate-targeted-programming-stp/
 

then that's enough:

* send people to the moon
* output bioforms/molecules that can eliminate a killer virus
* program the human biocomputer [ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_biocomputer ] qualia processing
* ...

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c83a3bf-fbd3-4932-9b2d-3bf3b16e7236%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/4/2020 6:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell 
> a écrit :


On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
> The SSH
>
> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>
> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics
today.(IT
> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of
idealism.
>
> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions,
forces - but
> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth
force/field).
>
>
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

>
> etc.
>
> * or physicalist
>
> @philipthrift

Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness
and other
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems
against
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems
in one
fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as
people
engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily
advertise their
pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases
physicalist
theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would
like to see
a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument
that it is
consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail
than just
that.

Saibal 



I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are
illusions. I have far more confidence in physics than I do in
hopeful ideas about qualia, which are psychological form of elan
vital thought in previous centuries to underlie biology.


Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean 
something (but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot 
account for that, it miss the things it purpose to explain.


When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I 
don't see how that could be explained away...




I think the problem here is with the word "explain".   Yes, physics will 
never explain quale.  But physics doesn't explain matter, or gravity, or 
entropy either.  Physics is regarded as successful because it makes good 
predictions, and that allows manipulation of things.  Look at the 
controversy over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  We have 
drastically different "explanations" of what is happening...which have 
zero effect on the application or usefulness of the theory.  And that's 
exactly the same situation with regard to consciousness and qualia.  
Chemistry and biology have a lot of of good "explanations" of quale in 
the sense of being able to predict them and manipulate them.  Sure, it's 
no where near as deep as physics explanations which reach down to 
sub-atomic level.  But physics aims for depth and bypasses the complex 
problems of biology as accidents of evolution, mere geography problems.  
There's no reason to suppose that chemistry and molecular biology and 
study of brain structure and AI will not reach the same depth of 
explanation of consciousness.  And it still won't "explain" quale, but 
it will manipulate them and reproduce them in AI and people will forget 
all about how mysterious they were...just like they have forgotten elan 
vitale.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/793213e0-89f6-f6fa-bc72-4c3b7608fe34%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/4/2020 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 May 2020, at 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:

The SSH

   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247

still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.

It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

etc.

* or physicalist

@philipthrift

Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell swoop.

Really?  What are 'all these problems that are solved’?

A reduction of why there is something to the existence of arithmetic + an 
explanation of why it is possible to explain arithmetic from less.


"Reduction of there is something to the existence of arithmetic"?? I 
can't even parse what problem that is...much less how you have solved 
it.  William S. Cooper has a good explanation from evolution.




Then the mind body problem, including why there are physical laws, and this 
from a “simple” theory of consciousness. Here physics is unable to predict why 
we see an eclipse when we use physics to predict an eclipse.


But physics can predict why we don't see an eclipse if we look the wrong 
direction or if we wear a hood or if we close our eyes or if our optic 
nerve is damaged.  None of which are explained by your theory.






Does it explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious?

That is what mechanism explains the best.




Does it explain how anesthesia works?


Certainly better than particles physics. But ye, it does not solve all 
problems. It formulates them, and we have to solve them one by one, like always 
in science.


In the meantime, chemisty does explain how anesthesia works.  And the 
explanation is based on the theory that consciousness in produced by the 
brain and depends on the diffusion of hormones across synaptic gaps.







Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia?  Drunkeness?  Does it explain the 
evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the brain?  Dementia?  Childhood 
amnesia?

Yes. Why not?


You say why not.  Why not explain those things.  Fine, then where is the 
explanation?  You claim the Greeks and the neo-Platonists had all this 
figured out.  So they had a 900yr head start over Galileo and 
Newton...and produced nothing.







Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X,

Has not, and cannot once we believe in say, Darwinism.




so by rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.


Yes, but the simplest explanation, with the biggest range of explanation will 
be the best. Physicalism remains based on a ontological commitment, which is 
the sort of “miracle” that scientists are skeptical about.

We don’t have evidence for a primary physical universe. The dream argument 
explains why evidence for a physical reality is not evidence for a primitive 
physical reality.


That we know the difference explains why the dream argument fails.

Brent


We confuse them due to a very long pseudo-religious brainwashing, to be short.

Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4746a82-54b6-3397-6084-08817b3d196e%40verizon.net.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fca45887-1b3a-1ea6-5865-afa02c9e6fd2%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Philip Thrift]

"Self-reference" in programming - going back to Brian Smith's 3-Lisp

   http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar19_86/p19-smith.pdf

- is a bit not-quite-real in the context of "The Self" of consciousness 
(self) realism (Galen Strawson). 

   
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/Self.pdf

@philipthrift



On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:59:04 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Self-reference is a case where the computation is not complete or can't be 
> quantified. We might then consider consciousness as a strange-loop where 
> the process can't be quantified, or any attempt to do so will always exceed 
> the capacity of the processor.
>
> LC
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>>
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>>
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>>
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>>
>> Saibal 
>>
>>
>> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>>
>>
>> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
>> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
>> centuries to underlie biology.
>>
>> LC
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9597f679-52f6-4504-9004-04e1fe45e61b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Lawrence Crowell]

Self-reference is a case where the computation is not complete or can't be
quantified. We might then consider consciousness as a strange-loop where
the process can't be quantified, or any attempt to do so will always exceed
the capacity of the processor.

LC

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
>
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > The SSH
> >
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
> >
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
> >
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
> >
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > * or physicalist
> >
> > @philipthrift
>
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just
> that.
>
> Saibal
>
>
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.
>
>
> Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?
>
> Telmo.
>
> I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous
> centuries to underlie biology.
>
> LC
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAAFA0qo57yoD99OT-TYmxXVs4C1FODM%3DJSsKN4z%2BHNMRxEGN-g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 14:15, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>>
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> > The SSH
>> >
>> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>> >
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
>> >
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
>> >
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>> >
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > * or physicalist
>> >
>> > @philipthrift
>>
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just
>> that.
>>
>> Saibal
>
>
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I
> have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous
> centuries to underlie biology.
>

Either you have no quale, and then as a zombie... it could mean something
(but not to you), or you have, and if a theory cannot account for that, it
miss the things it purpose to explain.

When you say "psychological form" you're talking about a quale... I don't
see how that could be explained away...

Quentin


> LC
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAoznb2X48gQq0domodP-%3DKU84o4VwZKtOw6xRSqLJJYtw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Mo, 4. Mai 2020, um 12:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The SSH 
>> > 
>> > https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
>> > 
>> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
>> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
>> > 
>> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
>> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
>> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
>> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
>> > 
>> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
>> > 
>> > etc. 
>> > 
>> > * or physicalist 
>> > 
>> > @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
>> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
>> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
>> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
>> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
>> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
>> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
>> that. 
>> 
>> Saibal 
> 
> I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions.

Isn't an illusion itself a qualia? Aren't you begging the question?

Telmo.

>  I have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
> qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
> centuries to underlie biology.
> 
> LC
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb72afca-3b77-447d-88d2-65286e0fe542%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The SSH 
> > 
> >   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247 
> > 
> > still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT 
> > FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism. 
> > 
> > It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of 
> > materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but 
> > to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new 
> > force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field). 
> > 
> > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness 
> > 
> > etc. 
> > 
> > * or physicalist 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
>
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
> fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
> engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
> pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
> theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
> a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
> consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
> that. 
>
> Saibal 


I think more likely this mean the hard problem or qualia are illusions. I 
have far more confidence in physics than I do in hopeful ideas about 
qualia, which are psychological form of elan vital thought in previous 
centuries to underlie biology.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc14bd06-c600-4e6a-abf1-b73943d36617%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 06:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:
>> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> The SSH
>>> 
>>>   https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>>> 
>>> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
>>> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
>>> 
>>> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
>>> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
>>> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
>>> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
>>> 
>>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>>> 
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> * or physicalist
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
>> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
>> physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell 
>> swoop. 
> 
> Really?  What are 'all these problems that are solved’? 

A reduction of why there is something to the existence of arithmetic + an 
explanation of why it is possible to explain arithmetic from less.

Then the mind body problem, including why there are physical laws, and this 
from a “simple” theory of consciousness. Here physics is unable to predict why 
we see an eclipse when we use physics to predict an eclipse.


> Does it explain why a blow to the head renders you unconscious? 

That is what mechanism explains the best. 



> Does it explain how anesthesia works? 


Certainly better than particles physics. But ye, it does not solve all 
problems. It formulates them, and we have to solve them one by one, like always 
in science.



> Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia?  Drunkeness?  Does it explain the 
> evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the brain?  Dementia?  
> Childhood amnesia?

Yes. Why not?



> 
> Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X,

Has not, and cannot once we believe in say, Darwinism.



> so by rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.


Yes, but the simplest explanation, with the biggest range of explanation will 
be the best. Physicalism remains based on a ontological commitment, which is 
the sort of “miracle” that scientists are skeptical about.

We don’t have evidence for a primary physical universe. The dream argument 
explains why evidence for a physical reality is not evidence for a primitive 
physical reality. We confuse them due to a very long pseudo-religious 
brainwashing, to be short.

Bruno





> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4746a82-54b6-3397-6084-08817b3d196e%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50439EDC-4A71-4A81-94B0-66C8D3179FC8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2020, at 05:14, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> The SSH
>>  https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247
>> still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
>> FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.
>> It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
>> materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
>> to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
>> force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).
>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
>> etc.
>> * or physicalist
>> @philipthrift
> 
> Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
> philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
> physicalism.


Yes, that was the basic insight from which science is born with Pythagorus and 
Plato. Then Aristotle came back with the idea, by a sort of reaction. Most 
people want to believe in a creation (and sometimes in a creator).

Matter is an invention so as to make the mind-body problem unsolvable, to allow 
superstition and fake religion to be used by tyran and manipulators (instead of 
doing research and accept pur ignorance).



> Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one fell swoop.

But it has to deduce physics from reason only. It is the origin of theoretical 
physics, but this has been missed by the metaphysicians.




> But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people engaging with 
> non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their pet theories because 
> they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist theories suffer from. The 
> bar has to be set higher, I would like to see a derivation of the laws of 
> physics, not some vague argument that it is consistent with QM and unitary 
> evolution but a lot more detail than just that.

If mechanism is true, physics is just the mathematics of the observable 
predicate, like []p & p with p partially computable, and []p & <>t, and []p & 
<>t & p, and then the G*/G separation, not only give the theory of quanta, but 
also the theory of qualia, and the explanation of consciousness, including why 
we cannot uindesrtand completely that theory, etc.

There is no choice in this. Materialsm remains coherent, but ask for a non 
computationalist theory of mind, which simply does not exist (except for vague 
fairy tales which are simply not theories in the scientific meaning of the 
term). 

Bruno


> 
> Saibal
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7482009376988ca1402b892670c19da%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F4CE991-4935-4CD1-BAA1-566E8AB58893%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/3/2020 8:14 PM, smitra wrote:

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:

The SSH

  https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247

still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.

It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

etc.

* or physicalist

@philipthrift


Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
fell swoop. 


Really?  What are 'all these problems that are solved'?  Does it explain 
why a blow to the head renders you unconscious?  Does it explain how 
anesthesia works?  Does it explain epilepsy? Synasthesia?  Drunkeness?  
Does it explain the evocation of memories by electrostimulation of the 
brain?  Dementia?  Childhood amnesia?


Or is it just smug mysticism that physics hasn't explained X, so by 
rejecting physics I'm entitled to any explanation I want about X.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4746a82-54b6-3397-6084-08817b3d196e%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[smitra]

On 03-05-2020 23:09, Philip Thrift wrote:

The SSH

  https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247

still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(IT
FROM QUBIT, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.

It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of
materialist* physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but
to approach CONSCIOUSNESS AS PURELY MATERIAL - adding a new
force/interaction/particle/field as needed (like a sixth force/field).

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

etc.

* or physicalist

@philipthrift


Physicalism is a dead end. The hard problem of consciousness and other 
philosophical problems can be considered to be no-go theorems against 
physicalism. Abandoning physicalism solves all these problems in one 
fell swoop. But that also opens the door to wrong theories as people 
engaging with non-physicalist theories can too easily advertise their 
pet theories because they don't suffer from all the diseases physicalist 
theories suffer from. The bar has to be set higher, I would like to see 
a derivation of the laws of physics, not some vague argument that it is 
consistent with QM and unitary evolution but a lot more detail than just 
that.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7482009376988ca1402b892670c19da%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Philip Thrift]

The SSH 
   
  https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247

still lies in the "information turn" that plays in physics today.(*it from 
qubit*, etc.) - a rejection pf materialism in favor of idealism.

It is more interesting to me to stick to the vocabulary of materialist* 
physics - particles, fields, interactions, forces - but to approach 
*consciousness 
as purely material* - adding a new force/interaction/particle/field as 
needed (like a sixth force/field).

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness
etc.

* or physicalist

@philipthrift



On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:18:25 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I downloaded this. I have communicated with Klee Irwin some years ago. He 
> might be a bit of a modern day Tesla; there is evidence of some brilliance, 
> but also a bit of madness. He has promoted a line of bogus supplements and 
> other things. I have on FQXi an essay now on the possible role of 
> self-reference in quantum mechanics. Hofstadter called these strange loops. 
> There are some prospects along these lines. I though would advise keeping 
> the skeptics mental software loaded with this paper.
>
> LC
>
> On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 10:02:52 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if this paper has been mentioned here, but it seems quite apt 
>> to our discussions. It appears concordant with my ideas in "Theory of 
>> Nothing", also Bruno's AUDA and Brent's virtuous circles. 
>>
>> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm 
>>
>> I haven't yet read the article in full - just the summary writeup here: 
>>
>>
>> https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=6#rebelltitem6
>>  
>>
>> Cheers 
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
>> Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>>   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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4356ff9-6fac-4e60-82cd-9f5eb7add215%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Lawrence Crowell]

I downloaded this. I have communicated with Klee Irwin some years ago. He 
might be a bit of a modern day Tesla; there is evidence of some brilliance, 
but also a bit of madness. He has promoted a line of bogus supplements and 
other things. I have on FQXi an essay now on the possible role of 
self-reference in quantum mechanics. Hofstadter called these strange loops. 
There are some prospects along these lines. I though would advise keeping 
the skeptics mental software loaded with this paper.

LC

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 10:02:52 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> Not sure if this paper has been mentioned here, but it seems quite apt 
> to our discussions. It appears concordant with my ideas in "Theory of 
> Nothing", also Bruno's AUDA and Brent's virtuous circles. 
>
> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm 
>
> I haven't yet read the article in full - just the summary writeup here: 
>
>
> https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=6#rebelltitem6
>  
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>   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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50aca28f-01fa-4190-b144-0d2bdafdfc2c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 May 2020, at 05:02, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> Not sure if this paper has been mentioned here, but it seems quite apt
> to our discussions. It appears concordant with my ideas in "Theory of
> Nothing", also Bruno's AUDA and Brent's virtuous circles.
> 
> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm
> 
> I haven't yet read the article in full - just the summary writeup here:
> 
> https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=6#rebelltitem6


It still postulate some physical universe, and miss the fact that elementary 
arithmetic must be assumed, and then cannot be completed (they miss the 1930s 
theorems: elementary arithmetic is the computer that they mention). Due to 
this, they missed the theory of qulaia, and the fact that the theory of quanta 
is part of that theory of qualia. Now, I have not looked at any detail, and the 
type of physics they use might, or not, be coherent with the mechanist 
hypothesis, that they seem to use (but that is unclear, as they don’t define 
precisely the notion of “simulation” that they use.

Best,

Bruno



> 
> Cheers
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20200503030239.GB29442%40zen.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FC9F4F5E-17FF-43E2-8132-218C26CC8840%40ulb.ac.be.