Dear Colleagues,
On 27 Apr 2012, at 23:32, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
Dear Hector,
What, exactly, is your objection to it[Terrence Deacon's book]? It's
anti-reductionism (that I would object to also) or it's claim that
Turing computation is insufficient (to which I have no objection)?
Turing computation is provably insufficient to define the truth, and
many other things, about ... the Turing machine's themselves. So the
expression "Turing computation is insufficient" is ambiguous.
My very basic objection to Deacon's idea is that if we assume
mechanism, i.e. the idea that the brain (or some generalization of it)
is Turing emulable, then mind cannot emerge from matter, but matter
has to emerge from the mind, itself emerging from number relations. So
matter does not emerge from the human mind, but from all "number's
mind".
Number's mind can be defined by what number's do, relatively to a
universal number.
A universal numbers is basically a relative code of a computer. If
phi_i is a fixed enumeration of the partial recursive functions, a
number u is universal if phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y), with (x,y) some fixed
bijection from NxN to N (N is the set of natural numbers). Note that
an expression like ph_i(j) = k, can be entirely stated in elementary
(first order) arithmetic. In particular the existence of universal
number is a theorem of arithmetic. The generality of the notion of
"universal" needs Church's thesis (or equivalent one by Turing or Post).
So, with the digital mechanist thesis, computer science and
information sciences appears to be more fundamental than the physical
sciences, and this in a constructive way: you can derive physics from
(intensional) number theory.
This makes the computationalist theory scientific, that is empirically
refutable.
The logic of the observable propositions has already been derived,
(accepting comp + the classical theory of knowledge) and up to now, it
fits rather well with quantum logic, although it is still an open
problem if we can derive the existence of quantum computing in our
neighborhood.
I have often heard of rumors that a flaw has been found in the
derivation, but usually, when I succeeded to get such claims
communicated, it contains elementary error in logic and/or computer
science (if not crackpot statement like the assertion that the mind-
body problem is solved, which I do no more try to debunk).
The result can be shocking for fundamentalist Aristotelians,
obviously, who believe dogmatically in Aristotle metaphysical notion
of *primary* matter, and have developed a tradition to put the mind-
body problem (or the first-person/third person relation problem) under
the rug.
On the contrary, it should please, I think, to people open to the
idea that reality might be more informational than substantial.
I have begun some explanations here, notably from posts by Loet and
Robin, but it is a bit hard to do this, with the two posts per week
rule, and I suggest, if interested, to read the paper I have referred
too, and which can be downloaded from my url (see below). You can then
ask any question on the everything list, or on the FOAR list, where
its is currently explained, and where I take time to debunk or correct
arguments, and with some luck I can ameliorate the exposition, or
correct minor flaws (see below). So if you study the papers, and have
any question, it might be simpler to address them there.
But if there is no flaw, it is necessarily matter and physics which
emerges from the mind, and not the contrary. Like with Everett QM, the
theory explains very well why it *looks* different. Its main weakness
is that it leads to complex open problem in number theory and computer
science.
Of course, all this does not prevent Terry's book to contain very
interesting remarks 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
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Hector Zenil wrote:
Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed
breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS
enthusiasts?
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could
have a
FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the
new info
avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart
Kauffman
and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular
discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple
of
voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob
Logan
could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh
discussion session for the coming months.
Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list;
the
filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.
Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated
or as
as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.
best
---Pedro
(fis list coordination)
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
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://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
