systems ", are widely used in many fields. If the interaction is
>>>>> rational, that is: formally equivalent to a logical discussion modi
>>>>> Wittgenstein, the difference in: "who arrived at this answer, machinery
>>>>> or a human"
e is not a machine from its/her private first person view. Only
“god” (the arithmetical truth is enough her) knows better.
Best,
Bruno
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> lunedì, 21 maggio 2018, 00:16PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac
een any evidence for
primary matter found yet, better to not add it.
Bruno
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> domenica, 20 maggio 2018, 07:06PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>
> Hi Dai Griffith, Hi Colleagu
there was a collapse, but
without any collapse.
When poll are done at congress in cosmology or quantum computing, about half of
the physicists endorse the non collapse theory, as it is covariant, and has no
“measurement problem”.
Bruno
>
>
>> Il 17 maggio 2018
;> kind.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> <tozziart...@libero.it <mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>> schrieb am Do., 10.
>>> Mai 2018 15:24:
>>> Dear Bruno,
>>> You state:
>>> "IF indexical digital mechanism is
Roberto Magari,
2007).
The math part requires some background in mathematical logic including
provability logics, like:
G. Boolos. 1979, The Unprovability of Consistency, an Essay in Modal Logic,
Cambridge University Press.
G. Boolos. The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, Cam
(the mind of the universal Turing machine) and the physical is the border of
the universal mind viewed from inside that universal mind. Again, I do not
defend that claim. I show it testable only.
Best regards,
Bruno
>
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
>
hat your son or daughter marry someone having got an
artificial hippocampus prosthesis?
Bruno
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> giovedì, 10 maggio 2018, 02:46PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>
> (This mail h
(This mail has been sent previously , but without success. I resend it, with
minor changes). Problems due to different accounts. It was my first comment to
Mark Burgin new thread “Is information physical?”.
Dear Mark, Dear Colleagues,
Apology for not answering the mails in the chronological
> On 25 Apr 2018, at 19:51, Alex Hankey wrote:
>
> Extract from Louis Kauffman:
>
> Two is a concept and it is outside of formal systems and outside of the
> physical
> except in that we who have that concept are linked with formalism and linked
> with the apparent
Hi Lou, Colleagues,
> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:55, Louis H Kauffman wrote:
>
> Dear Krassimir and Mark,
> Let us not forget the intermediate question:
> How is information independent of the choice of carrier?
> This is the fruitful question in my opinion, and it avoids the
Dear Mark,
> On 28 Mar 2018, at 23:10, Burgin, Mark wrote:
>
> Dear Arturo,
> Set theory is a particular case of named set theory. If set theory solves
> some problem, then named set theory solves the same problem. Use logic and
> some knowledge and you'll see truth.
ven third person describable in any way).
I am aware that what I say contradicts 1500 years of (Aristotelian) theology,
but then it was enforced by 1500 years of argument per authority, sometimes
violent.
Best,
Bruno
>
> STAN
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Bruno
Hi Dai, Hi Carl, Hi colleagues,
> On 19 Mar 2018, at 16:22, Dai Griffiths wrote:
>
> On 15/03/18 10:11, Karl Javorszky wrote:
>
> >To me, it does not appear necessary to make a distinction between “reality”
> >and “data”
>
> That's a defensible position, but it
Dear Alex,
> On 13 Mar 2018, at 08:38, Alex Hankey wrote:
>
> Dear Mark and Alberto,
>
> Let me propose a radical new input.
> The Human intuition is far more
> powerful than anything anyone
> has previously imagined, except
> those who use it regularly.
I agree
Plamen, Loet, Pedro,
> On 2 Mar 2018, at 10:36, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
> wrote:
>
> I know him: his name is God, the meta-observer + meta-actor at the same time.
> Correct, Bruno?
God has no name that can be invoked … in the antic greek scientific approach of
degrees of unsolvability of the
arithmetical problems.
Before Gödel, we thought we could secure the use of the infinite with precise
use of the finite, but after Gödel we know we need already the infinite to
partially control and understand the finite realm.
Best regards,
Bruno Marchal
(*) Follow
Hi John,
> On 26 Feb 2018, at 04:37, John Collier wrote:
>
> Inclined to agree with Joseph.
OK. Nice.
> I would like to point out that there are different meanings for "real', and
> one has to be clear about ones metaphysics to make the idea (somewhat) clear.
Yes. That is a
Dear John, Dear colleagues,
> On 25 Feb 2018, at 20:51, John Collier wrote:
>
> Daer Krassimir, List
>
> I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics you
> presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of the best.
> However, and this
ains a very startling
aspect of nature (the quantum aspect);
Bruno
>
>
> On 15 February 2018 at 15:14, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Feb 2018, at 04:46, mihir chakraborty <mihi...@gmail.com
>
> On 13 Feb 2018, at 04:46, mihir chakraborty wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> i did not enter the site --- but was not such numbering already done
> by great Goedel ? The so called Goedel numbering ?
Yes, good point. And that made possible the arithmetization of
Dear Pedro, dear colleagues,
Thank you for this announcement.
I make a comment below based on the abstract of the conference:
> On 11 Jan 2018, at 13:28, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>
>
> Dear FISers, this Conference in Code Biology may be of interest to some
>
Dear Koichiro,
On 19 Nov 2017 at 10:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Time might be an indexical, like with Mechanism in cognitive
science, or
like in General Relativity.
Dear Bruno,
It would be nice to share with you some agreement, no matter how
minute
it may be. That said, with regard
Dear Koichiro,
On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:02, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e.,
testable
mathematical predictions.
[KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone.
Dear Arturo, dear FISers,
On 08 Nov 2017, at 22:11, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
Dear FISers,
science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters.
I can't agree more. Science measure numbers, and infer relations among
them. But we know also that untestable ideas can be
Dear Krassimir,
On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear FIS Colleagues,
Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about
scientific
and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around.
The
letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual
Dear Gordana,
On 20 Oct 2017, at 11:02, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
Dear Terry, Bob, Loet
Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible
choices for the definition of agency.
I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s
article which makes a
Dear Lou, dear Gordanna,
On 22 Oct 2017, at 05:56, Louis H Kauffman wrote:
Dear Krassimir,
Thank you!!
Yours is the most creative resolution of the Barber Paradox that I
have encountered.
Perhaps we can apply it also to the Russell Paradox.
I do not know. Let us think about it.
Another
Dear Krassimir and FIS Colleagues,
It is time for my second post this week.
First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting
discussion!
Thank you for the nice posts.
More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity
Dear Jose, dear Loet, dear Krassimir, dear Alex, dear Pedro, dear All,
I sum up answers to Loet, and many others in this answer to Jose, to
avoid too much posts, but also I am in a very busy period.
On 16 Oct 2017, at 01:34, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:
Dear Krassimir, dear all,
I
Dear Joseph, Pedro and FISers,
On 02 Oct 2017, at 10:45, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,
In the 2 weeks I have been away, an excellent discussion has self-
organized as Pedro noted. Any preliminary comments and criticisms of
Pedro’s 10 Principles I could make now can refer
problem.
Bruno Marchal
— Terry
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
Dear Jose,
On 15 Sep 2017, at 16:37, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:
Dear Arturo,
Math is indeed a language that CAN describe scientific issues, but
it is not the only one. A
h symbols and numbers with only a tad of
poetry.
On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
The tensions between the computational natures of discrete and the
“continuous” numbers haunts any attempt to make mathematical
sense out of scientific hypotheses.
Hello Hans,
On 02 Feb 2017, at 16:32, Hans von Baeyer wrote:
Thank you Pedro for mentioning my new book.
Actually, there is a connection between my book and the curious
tale. QBists look at the future as a web of interlaced personal,
numerical probability estimates, with no certainties
On 14 Nov 2016, at 09:59, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear All,
It is fascinating to watch the evolution of ideas about information
as a function of some new theories which beg for critique:
1. Andrei gives a correct explanation of the origin of Irreducible
Quantum Randomness. In my opinion,
On 13 Nov 2016, at 10:48, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
Dear all,
I make the last remark about "physical information". The main
problem of quantum physics is to justify so called
IRREDUCIBLE QUANTUM RANDOMNESS (IQR). It was invented by von
Neumann. Quantum randomness, in contrast to
No machine can build a complete unequivocal study of its own
semantics. It has to be elusive, and that elusiveness plays an
important role in the unavoidable evolution of machines and collective
of machines.
Bruno Marchal
Malcolm Dean
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:29:21 +0100
From: &q
On 14 Oct 2016, at 16:16, Dai Griffiths wrote:
To trying to answer this question, I find myself asking "Do patterns
exist without an observer?".
Would 2+2=4 be true without the big bang occurring?
Of course this depend on the fundamental theory chosen. With a
physicalist theory, it is
Hi Plamen, Hi colleagues,
I would feel guilty not adding two grains of salt here, but I am aware
that a thorough understanding of what I say require some familiarity
with theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, at least for
the first remark.
About phenomenology, the
Dear Alex, dear friends,
On 04 May 2016, at 02:49, Alex Hankey wrote:
Dear Friends,
I was so struck by the group's focus on Gödel's theorems that I went
back to John R. Lucas who originated the idea that Gödel's insights
imply that the human miind is not a machine - and therefore capable
Dear Albert,
On 07 May 2016, at 06:57, Albert A Johnstone wrote:
Greetings everyone,
I’d like to say a few words about Smullyan’s thought experiment and
its relevance to Gödel’s Theorem in the hope of putting an end to
discussion of a topic somewhat tangential to the main one. Before
nsional variants of provability, or truth and provability.
Note also that Gödel managed to avoid the use of semantic or truth,
like I just did. His proof can be made simpler by using them. Today,
thanks to Tarski, the notion of truth is no more problematic in logic,
and in the elementary par
Hi Alex,
On 02 May 2016, at 08:30, Alex Hankey wrote:
RE Bruno Marchal: It is easier to explain the illusion of matter to
something conscious than to explain the illusion of consciousness to
something material.
ME: At the Consciousness Conference I found it extraordinary that at
least
Dear Maxine,
On 30 Apr 2016, at 19:37, Maxine Sheets-Johnstone wrote:
To FIS colleagues,
First, an open-to-all response to Lou Kaufmann:
Thank you for your lengthy tutorial—some time back--but I wonder and
am
genuinely puzzled given the “phenomenology-life sciences theme” why
none
of
of many parallel
computations: this seems to explain both qualitatively and
quantitatively most of the quantum "weirdness", without needing an
abandon of determinism and locality. It leads to a sort of many dreams
internal interpretation of arithmetic.
Best,
Bruno Marchal
On
Hi Karl,
On 31 Mar 2016, at 17:30, Karl Javorszky wrote:
In the present Interlude after the session chaired by Lou on
Symmetry and before the coming one, allow me to enlarge on something
Bruno raised.
Bruno wrote:
Then this confirms the "computationalist theory of everything",
Dear Koichiro, dear John and Colleagues,
I bump this older post, as it is related to my recent post to Lou.
On 27 Nov 2015, at 02:06, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
At 4:28 AM 11/27/2015, John C. wrote:
A paper by my former graduate advisor, Jeff Bub, who was a student
of David Bohm’s.
Dear Lou and Colleagues,
On 25 Mar 2016, at 19:51, Louis H Kauffman wrote:
Dear Karl,
Thank you for this very considered letter.
I would like to ask you about your entry
"6. Quantum information. By keeping an exact accounting about
which predictions are being fulfilled to which
Dear Loet,
On 22 Feb 2016, at 20:36, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.
I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle.
Why would one need a worldview?
We need some theory, and around the mind-body problem or the first
Dear Malcolm,
On 21 Feb 2016, at 22:51, Malcolm Dean wrote:
All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.
I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle.
With the digital mechanist assumption, the miracle can be limited to
the axioms of elementary arithmetic (or
I still don't know if memories filter consciousness or enhance it. The
relation seems complex and non linear. Here the informational
approach, when properly related to the self-referential logical
approach, might add some light on that important problem.
Best,
Bruno
- Original Message
Dear Loet,
Sorry for bumping this old post, but I cannot resist (I tried!) to add
my grain of salt.
On 21 Oct 2015, at 08:37, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Self-reference is a key principle in art and humor and it may also
be a key component of the structured coherence in science Pedro and
Dear Joseph,
On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:31, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear John,
Sorry you have been ill.
I agree fully with your statement: All of these explanations, and
even stating the problem, require information notions, not just
energy as in classical physics.
What I object to are
are
machines, then it is duplicable, and we have no algorithm to predict
the particular subjective experience when we accept such personal
duplication. Physics can then be recovered by the global FPI on the
computable number relations.
Best regards to all,
Bruno Marchal
yours, andrei
Andrei
On 23 Jun 2015, at 07:13, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
My dear FIS-friends,
I apologize for not withstanding the pace of our discussion – you
are already busy with the problem of “meaning” (Steven) and I am
still preparing to answer Howard’s letter about linguistic biology…
Dear Howard,
Dear Krassimir,
I apologize because I have just realized that I have miss-replied in
my last posting, and send them only to the writer of the post, and not
to the list. Same for some comment I made to John Collier.
I intent to send a mail where I sum up my position on the information
Dear Loet,
On 17 Feb 2014, at 21:32, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Dear Joseph,
The energetic terms are external referents to the communication
(scholarly discourse). These external referents can differently be
codified; for example, in terms of thermodynamics or various forms
of physics
Hi Steven,
On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:10, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
I make one thing I say here clear. When I say rejection of
scripture, I really must say rejection of the literal interpretation
of scripture.
Important nuance.
Many of these radical Unitarian's - if not all of them
at
projects,
Bruno
For the new comers in the list, there is an archive with all the
messages exchanged:
https://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/
Interested parties may look for the current discussion session, which
started on 27/09/2013.
Best,
Raquel
El 12/11/2013 13:31, Bruno
Dear Bi,
On 12 Nov 2013, at 09:55, bilin1001 wrote:
Dear Raquel,
I am also a PhD student, in Information Philosophy. My Thesis deals
with
Mutual Meaning Space in social exchanges (interpersonal
communication).
I am very interested in your work on the necessity of conversation:
Hi,
On 02 Nov 2013, at 17:40, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear Gordana and Loet,
I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of
the hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially
very important. In reality, it is the processes in the hierarchy
that have
Hi Karl,
On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:23, Karl Javorszky wrote:
As Bob said experiences - words. Wittgenstein said words -
numbers. Pythagoras: world - numbers. Idea: organise numbers like
you organise words and see the world.
Question from Stan: experience - number ?.
Answer:
Like in Bobs
On 27 May 2013, at 08:08, John Collier wrote:
Another vapid criticism with no argument. Give me an idea, Jerry,
give me an idea. You obviously think I don't have it, so it would be
rude of you to just say this sort of thing and refrain. List some
things that are involved with metaphysics
On 11 Feb 2013, at 18:38, John Collier wrote:
I guess I am at a loss to see them as separate
discourses.
Me too. Actually I do not believe in something like *Science*. But I
do believe in the human *scientific attitude*, and I have eventually
realized that such attitude is totally domain
Hi Gordana, Robin, John and FIS colleagues,
On 19 Nov 2012, at 14:05, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
Dear Joseph,
I agree with you. I am also against totalitarianism.
Computationalism is not the world, it is only a modeling framework.
It is parallel to mechanicism, but has stronger expressive
Dear Robert and FIS colleagues,
On 12 Nov 2012, at 16:35, Robert Ulanowicz wrote:
Dear Pedro,
Roman Littlefield is coming out with a volume along those lines
entitled Beyond Mechanism
http://www.academia.edu/1141907/Beyond_Mechanism_Putting_Life_Back_Into_Biology
As for our Chinese
/
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/AAH/faculty/william.seaman
http://www.dibs.duke.edu/research/profiles/98-william-seaman
RadioSeaman
Paste into itunes (Advanced/open audio streams) for internet radio:
http://smw-aux.trinity.duke.edu:8000/radioseaman
On Oct 27, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 26 Oct 2012, at 22:32, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ wrote:
Dear FISers,
Is it interesting the discussion on wether those informational
entities contain realizations of the Aristotelian scheme of
causality or not?
The cell, in my view, conspicuously fails --it would be too
the fundamental
reality, nor its physical part, can be Turing emulable, despite
quantum machine can be Turing emulated. This is more or less a direct
consequence of the existence of the first person indeterminacy in
arithmetic.
Bruno Marchal
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
in
principle. Both computationalism in cognitive science, and quantum
mechanics (without collapse) point toward a completely reversible
physical reality.
Best,
Bruno Marchal
Professor John Collier
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260
.
Bruno Marchal
Sincerely.
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https
and mechanism (or
physicalism and computationalism) arises from a reductionist view on
the machines themselves.
-- Bruno Marchal
So, after a glance in the whole book, I am now in the detailed
reading of Chapter 4, with mounting disappointment... Incomplete
Book!! Deeper exploration needed
and analyses, and my critics here bears only on
his most fundamental preconception.
Sincere respects,
- Bruno Marchal
PS:
A short but complete paper:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
FOAR mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/foar?hl=en
On 17 Apr 2012, at 11:44, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
It seems to me that, if I believe I am duplicable, and understand the
protocol, I must predict that I will experience being in both Moscow
and
Washington. The process bifurcates one person, who becomes two
people with
absolutely
can
understand that we might have just been guilty of having developed a
reductionist conception of numbers and machines.
Arithmetic is not just full of life. Angels, goddesses, and other
oracles are also at play :)
Bruno
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
emulable. In particular digital physics can
be shown self-contradictory. Those (actually old) results are not well
known but have been verified by many people. I don't think there is a
flaw, but we never can be sure, of course.
Bruno Marchal
PS see below for a concise version of the proof:
http
Hi Joe, and FIS colleagues,
On 28 Feb 2012, at 19:16, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote:
Dear Pedro, John and Colleagues,
The article by Terrence Deacon in the book referred to by John is
entitled What is Missing from Theories of Information? and, as
Pedro has indicated, it and Deacon's new
Hi Pedro,
On 21 Feb 2012, at 18:02, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
Dear FIS colleagues,
John's comments below on that book are quite interesting. Most
approaches to information rely on stuff and organization of
stuff --information is inevitably physical, as Rolf Landauer put
long ago.
OK.
78 matches
Mail list logo