Re: Fw: SAS and mathematical existence
Dear Bruno, thanks for your reply. Please, open up your mind to consider what I was talking about: a *different* mindset, result of a *differrent* evolutionary process - no mathematical (or call it whatever you wish: computational, arithmetic, whatever) LOGIC like we have now, but *something* different. That would not change the word, would, however change our views about it. You asked questions (> How different? <) about this 'different' way *within* the ongoing terminology, how "this 'other' would look if it wouldn't be 'other'." Unfortunately I am also a product of a similar evolutionary process so I cannot muster the 'different' ways, only think about the potential of such. Good enough IMO for just another (unrealistic) thought-experiment. > What is your god? < I have none, but the term refers to a supernatural being deciding, even organizing and 'creating' the existence (world?). In our "human" terms, of course. By our "human" logic. Within our "human" computational capabilites (or at least fitting such). Just as (my inadequate term) mathematics - as I wrote. (At least in the minds of many learned scientists). Have a happy quantum eternity, just don't get bored after the first 30,000 years of doing what's given in the system. Playing the harp is also a possibility. You may always resort to a quantum suicide. Regards John Mikes Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:08 AM Subject: Re: Fw: SAS and mathematical existence > Hi John, > > > Digitality and its application is human invention and humans APPLY it to > >the world. > > OK, but then the difference between human and non human is also a > human invention, and humans apply it to what they see, or believe to see. > > >With a different evolutionary setup of brainfunctions we maight > >have a different idea of the "mathematical". > > How different? Perhaps we might have discover the p-adic numbers first, > or we would have always worked in finite fields Z_p, or we would have > natural logarithmic capacities, or we would have quite different notions of the > continua. But I don't think any of this can change the status of > arithmetic, in which you can embed most of computer science proposition, > including consistent discourse on numbers and machine. > In a sense I agree with you for the large meaning of "mathematical", but > concerning arithmetical proposition of the form > It exists n such that P(n) > with P decidable, can depend of me our us. > > >Would that change the world? > > maybe someone could identify the "mathematical" in the sense as it > >"exists" by itself. I think in "effects" not finding the "words" properly > >describing them. If the 'mathematical' does describe them all properly, it is >>still a description of something otherwise not identifiable, not the >>"something" itself. > > I have the idea that the esteemed listmembers consider "the mathematical" > >as a god that created the world and rules its existence. By itself. > > OK for me, with "mathematical" (a very fuzzy term) replaced by >"arithmetical" or better " computable". > Those terms are still fuzzy, for example the set of all completely > computable things is not itself computable, but, with CT >(Church Thesis), the set of completely or not > completely computable things is computable! (This is a consequence of > diagonalisation closure see the diagonalisation post. It is what makes >the UD possible). So we get the less we need to postulate if we hope >being serious getting some explanation of us and the worlds. What is the least you thing we should accept to get the rest? > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Fw: SAS and mathematical existence
Hi John, > Digitality and its application is human invention and humans APPLY it to the > world. OK, but then the difference between human and non human is also a human invention, and humans apply it to what they see, or believe to see. With a different evolutionary setup of brainfunctions we maight have > a different idea of the "mathematical". How different? Perhaps we might have discover the p-adic numbers first, or we would have always worked in finite fields Z_p, or we would have natural logarithmic capacities, or we would have quite different notions of the continua. But I don't think any of this can change the status of arithmetic, in which you can embed most of computer science proposition, including consistent discourse on numbers and machine. In a sense I agree with you for the large meaning of "mathematical", but concerning arithmetical proposition of the form It exists n such that P(n) with P decidable, can depend of me our us. Would that change the world? > maybe someone could identify the "mathematical" in the sense as it "exists" > by itself. I think in "effects" not finding the "words" properly describing > them. If the 'mathematical' does describe them all properly, it is still a > description of something otherwise not identifiable, not the "something" > itself. > I have the idea that the esteemed listmembers consider "the mathematical" as > a god that created the world and rules its existence. By itself. OK for me, with "mathematical" (a very fuzzy term) replaced by "arithmetical" or better " computable". Those terms are still fuzzy, for example the set of all completely computable things is not itself computable, but, with CT (Church Thesis), the set of completely or not completely computable things is computable! (This is a consequence of diagonalisation closure see the diagonalisation post. It is what makes the UD possible). So we get the less we need to postulate if we hope being serious getting some explanation of us and the worlds. What is your god? What is the least you thing we should accept to get the rest? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Fw: SAS and mathematical existence
This post went by my mistake to Alberto only. It was meant to the list as well. John Mikes - Original Message - From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Alberto Gómez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: Re: SAS and mathematical existence > Alberto, > Digitality and its application is human invention and humans APPLY it to the > world. With a different evolutionary setup of brainfunctions we maight have > a different idea of the "mathematical". Would that change the world? > maybe someone could identify the "mathematical" in the sense as it "exists" > by itself. I think in "effects" not finding the "words" properly describing > them. If the 'mathematical' does describe them all properly, it is still a > description of something otherwise not identifiable, not the "something" > itself. > I have the idea that the esteemed listmembers consider "the mathematical" as > a god that created the world and rules its existence. By itself. > > John Mikes > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Alberto Gómez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:24 AM > Subject: SAS and mathematical existence > > > > For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience > > arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles > > in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and > > finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 dimensional universe for one side > > and, on the other side, to wonder about how SAS in a complex enough > > mathematical structure can have a sense of conscience. > > > > Conscience has evolutionary advantages in biological terms, and probably > > the conscience will emerge, with time, in any description in which the > > rules permit a replication-with-variations/selection and where one > > objects feeds from others. It doesn't matter if the description is made > > of n-branes in 11 dimensional spaces or in any other > > mathematical/algorithmical construct. > > > > These self aware structures in their particular space-time will describe > > trajectories in which a superintelligent and supradimensional observer > > could see, inside the SAS, some components: neurons, or alike, that > > shows signs of troughs about themselves and the rest of their world in a > > way that interactions between SAS will depend on the changes of their > > brains -or something like brains-. This is the most that an external > > observer can experience about the conscience of other beings. These > > beings will think, so they will exist -and they will think that they > > exist, that is crucial - . That must be true either in our "physical" > > world or the world of a geometrical figure in a n-dimensional spacetime, > > or in a computer simulation defined by a complex enough algorithm (These > > three alternative ways of describing universes may be isomorphic, being > > the first a particular case or not. The computability of our universe > > doesn't matter for this question). > > > > So the mathematical existence, when SAS are possible inside the > > mathematical formulation, implies existence (the expression "physical > > existence" may be a redundancy) > > > > But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the > > existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that > > formulate these mathematical descriptions? That is: every mathematical > > object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to > > question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical > > existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The > > question is the mathematical existence itself. > > >
Re: SAS and mathematical existence
On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 01:24 AM, Alberto Gómez wrote: But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that formulate these mathematical descriptions? That is: every mathematical object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The question is the mathematical existence itself. I think Tegmark's level 4 explains-away any fine tuning of our understanding of math/physics by allowing infinite sets (MWI).. every conscience observer may wonder why their maths are setup just right. In the universes which have magical math that lacks whatever consistency evolution needs - there are presumably no observers.
SAS and mathematical existence
For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 dimensional universe for one side and, on the other side, to wonder about how SAS in a complex enough mathematical structure can have a sense of conscience. Conscience has evolutionary advantages in biological terms, and probably the conscience will emerge, with time, in any description in which the rules permit a replication-with-variations/selection and where one objects feeds from others. It doesn't matter if the description is made of n-branes in 11 dimensional spaces or in any other mathematical/algorithmical construct. These self aware structures in their particular space-time will describe trajectories in which a superintelligent and supradimensional observer could see, inside the SAS, some components: neurons, or alike, that shows signs of troughs about themselves and the rest of their world in a way that interactions between SAS will depend on the changes of their brains -or something like brains-. This is the most that an external observer can experience about the conscience of other beings. These beings will think, so they will exist -and they will think that they exist, that is crucial - . That must be true either in our "physical" world or the world of a geometrical figure in a n-dimensional spacetime, or in a computer simulation defined by a complex enough algorithm (These three alternative ways of describing universes may be isomorphic, being the first a particular case or not. The computability of our universe doesn't matter for this question). So the mathematical existence, when SAS are possible inside the mathematical formulation, implies existence (the expression "physical existence" may be a redundancy) But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that formulate these mathematical descriptions? That is: every mathematical object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The question is the mathematical existence itself.
