On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost
me again.
I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is
explained in comp as a a persistent relational entity, so I don't
see the problem. It is necessary in the sense that it is implied
by the comp hypothesis, even constructively (making comp
testable). It is even more stable and "solid" than anything we
might extrapolate from observation, as we might be dreaming.
Indeed it comes from the atemporal ultra-stable relations between
numbers, that you recently mention as not created by man (I am
very glad :).
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
Matter is not primitive as it is not irreducible. My claim is
that matter is, explained very crudely, patterns of invariances
for some collection of inter-communicating observers (where an
observer can be merely a photon detector that records its states).
OK, except that we have no photon at the start.
This is not contradictory to your explanation of it as "persistent
relational entity", but my definition is very explicit about the
requirements that give rise to the "persistent relations". I
believe that these might be second order relations between
computational streams. and can be defined in terms of bisimulation
relations between streams.
You might try to relate this with the UDA consequences.
I question the very idea of "atemporal ultra-stable relations
between numbers" since numbers cannot be considered consistently
as just entities that correspond to 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We have to
consider all possible denotations of the signified.
I think this is deeply flawed. Notion of denotations and set of
denotations, are more complex that the notion of numbers.
See http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html#signified
for an explanation. Additionally, there are not just a single type
of number as there is a dependence on the model of arithmetic that
one is using.
Outside arithmetic. This use the intuitive notion of numbers, even
second order arithmetic. This is explained, through comp, as
construct of numbers.
For example Robinson Arithmetic and Peano Arithmetic do not define
the same numbers.
Of course they do. RA has more model than PA, but we use the theory
with the intended model in mind, relying on our intuition of
numbers, not on any theory. No one ever interpret a number in the
sense of a non standard numbers. That would make comp quite fuzzy.
Nobody would say "yes" to a doctor if he believe that he is a non
standard machine/number. You can't code them in any finite (in the
standard sense!) ways.
So we have multiple signified and multiple signifiers and
cannot assume a single mapping scheme between them. I suppose that
a canonical map exists in terms of the Tennebaum theorem, but I
need to discuss this more with you to resolve my understanding of
this question.
You do at the absic level what I suspect you to do in many post.
Escaping forward in the complexity. But to get the technical
results all you need is assessing your intuition of finite, and
things like the sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
Then if you agree with the definition of addition and
multiplication, everything will be OK. If not you would be like a
neuroscientist trying to define a neuron by the activity of a brain
thinking about a neuron, and you will get a complexity catastrophe.
This remark is very important. Your critics here apply to all
papers you cite. We have to agree on simple things at the start,
independently of the fact that we can't define them by simpler
notion. For the numbers, or programs, finite strings, hereditarily
finite objects, the miracle is that we do share the standard
notion of it, unlike for any other notions like set, real number,
etc.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Dear Bruno,
I wish I could motivate you to study a bit about Semiotics and
how it approaches the relation between a representation and its
referent. You seem to think them as identical for numbers.
?
I do not. I don't see why you think so. A number is not his
representation, nor more than a brain is a person.
What I did here is just to accept the notion of natural numbers as a
technical base, as we can agree on simple statements on them, and that
is all we need.
In the development, I use model theory instead of semiotics as it is
more clear for me, and more known by scientists.
We seem to just talk past each other.
It is normal because you do philosophy, and I do not. No problem if
you keep that in mind.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
