On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:38, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: All this does not define the natural numbers in the sense of
a logical categorical definition. Why we understand them is a
mystery, but we can meta-explained why that mystery is unsolvable.
We don't need an infinity axiom in the ontology (indeed the axioms
of the TOE is RA: no infinity axioms, not even induction axioms).
But with comp at the meta-level, we do use infinity axioms at the
epistemological level---or at least the creature generated by RA do
that, and we interview them to retrieve the physical laws.
Richard: Could explain why the physical laws are not ontological.?
The laws of physics should emerge from the FPI on all sigma_1 truth.
The intuitive certainty (Bp & Dt (& p)) gives indeed a quantization on
the (true) sigma_1 sentences.
We get three arithmetical quantizations(*), so strictly speaking we
get three type of physical reality.
The physical laws are not ontological because the theory assumes *any*
universal system, and I use numbers, because people know them (but the
proof of universality is not that simple).
This leads to the first person measure problem, and its solution
should be the physical laws (by UDA). And the propositional physics
found there is up to now not refuted by the facts. Too bad, we don't
refute comp!
Bruno
(*), on p sigma_1, Bp & p, Bp & Dt, Bp & p & Dt). In those case we get
p -> BDp, and can test a comparison with quantum logic(s).
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09 Dec 2013, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/9/2013 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Dec 2013, at 01:33, LizR wrote:
On 9 December 2013 05:52, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could you name a materialistic theory that explains consciousness
Consciousness is the feeling information has when it is being
processed; if conscious is fundamental, that is to say it comes
at the end of a long line of "what is that?" questions, then
after saying that there is just nothing more that can be said
about it. And hey, it's just as good as a billion other
consciousness theories.
Ah yes, Max Tegmark's "theory".These aren't theories, is the
problem. One needs a rigorous definition of what consciousness
is, to start with, and then a theory that explains all its
observed features, and makes testable predictions. Otherwise all
one has is a jumble of words.
To be precise, we don't need a definition of what consciousness
is. WE need only to agree on some assertion on consciousness. It
is the same with line and points. The same with natural numbers.
We don't need to define them (in fact we can't). We need only to
agree on axioms about them, and methods or rules of logical
inference/deduction.
And we learn what are natural numbers in the same way, ostensively
by one's mother holding up fingers and saying "one", "two",... And
so we generalize and make a theory about fingers and other
countable things. And we know that in all cases we run into we can
add one more and so we casually assume an axiom of infinity because
it is convenient and seems to cause no problems. But if it leads
to paradoxes and absurdities...
All this does not define the natural numbers in the sense of a
logical categorical definition. Why we understand them is a mystery,
but we can meta-explained why that mystery is unsolvable. We don't
need an infinity axiom in the ontology (indeed the axioms of the TOE
is RA: no infinity axioms, not even induction axioms). But with comp
at the meta-level, we do use infinity axioms at the epistemological
level---or at least the creature generated by RA do that, and we
interview them to retrieve the physical laws.
This is a point where I might be quick sometimes/
UDA start from comp, and at step 8, we should understand that the
TOE is RA (or equivalent), and comp is replaced by the restriction
to the sigma_1 sentences for the epistemology.
So going from UDA to AUDA, comp passes from the base level to the
metalevel. In AUDA we assume RA, and interview richer believer (like
PA) as generated by RA (or equivalently the universal dovetailer).
After UDA, we know that we dont need and cannot need anything more
than
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
The comp philosophy is then translated entirely in term of
definitions, and theorems in that theory.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
