Re: The contingency of theories
On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
All theories are based on the a priori but
can only give contingent results (this world
results).
Hmm OK.
However, arithmetic is not a theory,
Sorry, but it is. I mean there are even many theories. Two important
one in the comp setting is the "very elementary theory". Basically
just the four equalities:
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
This is already Turing universal.
A richer theory (PA), which is Löbian (knows she is universal), is the
same four axioms +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
and with the infinities of induction axioms, for all arithmetical
formula F(x) :
( F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x)) ) -> AxF(x)
By Gödel 2, or by Löb, Arithmetical Truth is far beyond *all*
theories and machines. "Arithmetical Truth" cannot be defined by those
machines, although they can build transfinite of approximation, and
handles pointer on the notion.
it is
arithmetical (permanent, necessary, logical) truth.
Yes. But logically you have still to make your assumptions explicit
and clear, and then you see that arithmetical truth is bigger than
what we can conceive (provably so about the sound machines) and that
it will have many contingent internal aspects when seen from "inside".
Still both the necessary and the contingent obeys to (meta) laws, in
the computer science setting.
Bruno
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/3/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 05:59:33
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On 02 Nov 2012, at 22:02, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
He believes he still exist, because he believes, or assumed, comp.
People believe they exist and in real life they don't have or need a
reason for doing so. And I no longer know what "comp" means.
Comp means that we can survive with a digital brain. Nothing else.
but it implies that Plato is correct and Aristotle is incorrect for
the global conception of reality.
Comp is that we can survive with a digital machine replacing the
brain.
I have no difficulty with that, but now you tell me that it means a
great many other things too,
Yes. It has concequences which contradict many point of Aristotle
metaphysics.
things that are clearly untrue; like consciousness was there before
Evolution produced brains or "the owner [of a brain] itself must
attach his consciousness to all states existing in arithmetic".
Let us go step by step.
you are stuck in step 3
And I will remain stuck there until you fix the blunders you made in
step 3;
Your "blunder" has been debunked by many people. Then you have
oscillate between contradictory statements. You are only confusing 1-
views with 3-views. Sometimes between 3-views on 1-views and the 1-
views on 1-views.
You are the one pretending being able to predict what happens after
pushing the button, but you have always given a list of what can
happen, which is not a prediction.
after that perhaps the additional steps that were built on that
fatally flawed foundation would be worth reading.
You did not show a flow, just a confusion between 1p and 3p.
the guy in W and the guy in M are both the guy in H
Yes.
by definition of comp.
I don't know what that is.
See above.
This is enough to get the 1_indeterminacy.
You don't know what your environment will be, what's new and
mysterious about that?
OK. Good. So you accept it. Please go to step 4 now, and tell me if
you agree. We have all the time to see where the reasoning will
eventually lead us.
I have no duplicating machine but I still don't know if my
environment will include rain tomorrow, but I can't find anything of
philosophical interest in that fact .
This is not the same form of indeterminacy. The impossibility of
predicting the weather is due to the deterministic chaos. This is
not used in the first person indeterminacy.
And the guy in Helsinki, if he can reason like any L?ian machine,
Like your other invention "comp" I don't know what a "L?ian
machine" is.
A universal machine capable of proving all sentence with the shape p
-> Bew('p'), with p being an arithmetical sentence with shape
ExP(x), and P decidable. Exemple: prover theorem for PA, ZF, etc.
What is the probability the Washington man will write in his
diary he sees Washington? 100%.
The question was asked to the Helsinki man.
But you said the Helsinki man was destroyed, if so then he's got a
rather severe case of writers block and is writing very little in
his diary.
The body of the guy in Helsinki is destroyed, but by comp, we have
already accept that the guy itself survives.
So when you say "The question w
The contingency of theories
Hi Bruno Marchal
All theories are based on the a priori but
can only give contingent results (this world
results).
However, arithmetic is not a theory, it is
arithmetical (permanent, necessary, logical) truth.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/3/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 05:59:33
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On 02 Nov 2012, at 22:02, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> He believes he still exist, because he believes, or assumed, comp.
People believe they exist and in real life they don't have or need a reason for
doing so. And I no longer know what "comp" means.
Comp means that we can survive with a digital brain. Nothing else. but it
implies that Plato is correct and Aristotle is incorrect for the global
conception of reality.
> Comp is that we can survive with a digital machine replacing the brain.
I have no difficulty with that, but now you tell me that it means a great many
other things too,
Yes. It has concequences which contradict many point of Aristotle metaphysics.
things that are clearly untrue; like consciousness was there before Evolution
produced brains or "the owner [of a brain] itself must attach his
consciousness to all states existing in arithmetic".
Let us go step by step.
> you are stuck in step 3
And I will remain stuck there until you fix the blunders you made in step 3;
Your "blunder" has been debunked by many people. Then you have oscillate
between contradictory statements. You are only confusing 1-views with 3-views.
Sometimes between 3-views on 1-views and the 1-views on 1-views.
You are the one pretending being able to predict what happens after pushing the
button, but you have always given a list of what can happen, which is not a
prediction.
after that perhaps the additional steps that were built on that fatally flawed
foundation would be worth reading.
You did not show a flow, just a confusion between 1p and 3p.
> the guy in W and the guy in M are both the guy in H
Yes.
> by definition of comp.
I don't know what that is.
See above.
> This is enough to get the 1_indeterminacy.
You don't know what your environment will be, what's new and mysterious about
that?
OK. Good. So you accept it. Please go to step 4 now, and tell me if you agree.
We have all the time to see where the reasoning will eventually lead us.
I have no duplicating machine but I still don't know if my environment will
include rain tomorrow, but I can't find anything of philosophical interest in
that fact .
This is not the same form of indeterminacy. The impossibility of predicting the
weather is due to the deterministic chaos. This is not used in the first person
indeterminacy.
> And the guy in Helsinki, if he can reason like any L?ian machine,
Like your other invention "comp" I don't know what a "L?ian machine" is.
A universal machine capable of proving all sentence with the shape p ->
Bew('p'), with p being an arithmetical sentence with shape ExP(x), and P
decidable. Exemple: prover theorem for PA, ZF, etc.
What is the probability the Washington man will write in his diary he
sees Washington? 100%.
>>> The question was asked to the Helsinki man.
>> But you said the Helsinki man was destroyed, if so then he's got a rather
>> severe case of writers block and is writing very little in his diary.
> The body of the guy in Helsinki is destroyed, but by comp, we have already
> accept that the guy itself survives.
So when you say "The question was asked to the Helsinki man" you are asking a
question to a man who's body has been destroyed.
No, the question is asked before he pushes on the read/cut button.
Yes the Helsinki man is also the Washington man so you could say there is a
100% chance the Helsinki man will write in his diary "I see Washington".
No. the question is *about* a future 1-view. The guy knows that he might very
well be the guy in Moscow, so he cannot assert that he will *feel* with 100%
chance to be the one in Washington. Again you confuse the 3-view and the
1-view.
Of course the Helsinki man is also the Moscow man so there is a 100% chance the
Helsinki man will write in his diary "I DO NOT see Washington". There is no
contradiction because you have been duplicated.
Of course there is no contradiction. But the Helsinki man would find to be
contradict if he said I will find myself in W and I will find myself in
Washington, from the first person view, as he knows that after pushing the
button he will find himself being in only one city, not in two cities
simultaneously.
>> If Bruno Marchal's body is duplicated and sent to Washington and Moscow but
>> ins
