On 04 Jan 2014, at 16:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz,
It may not be "physics" by your definition but both the Present
moment and Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they
are basic aspects of reality.
Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what
is mathematically describable.
Not all of reality is mathematical, but it is all logical since its
computed.
Obviously even a silicon software program is a logical structure but
not all of that logic is mathematical operations.
Logic is a branch of mathematics. Roughly, any other branch is
equivalent with logic (usually classical, but not always) + the non
logical supplementary axioms.
For applied mathematics, we usually relate the axiom with facts that
we infer (or believe in for any reason), assuming some reality (to
which the axioms and consequence are supposed to be applied).
For example, we all have a good intuition of the structure (N, +, *),
and we can axiomatize it by classical logic (= a set of axioms and
inference rules) + the supplementary axioms, in the language of first
order logic, with variables, with equality, union {0, s, +, *}:
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
If you accept Church thesis, computability is a purely mathematical
notion. Even an arithmetical notion, which means that you can define
it in that {0, s, +, *} language, and already prove something in that
theory. In fact that theory is "universal" with respect to
computability. It is a full complete programming language. It is not
complete with respect to provability, as no effective theory can be,
by Gödel incompleteness.
Not all reality is mathematical, indeed. This can be proved in the
weak comp theory I work on. The first person notion that we can
associate to machine escapes in some sense the "mathematical". But
that escape itself is mathematical. Mathematics cannot prove the
existence of something non mathematical, but it can prove that comp
entails the existence of some machine's attribute which are non
mathematically definable by the machine, yet "real" from the machine's
point of view.
I propose an argument showing that IF your consciousness is invariant
for a substitution of your "brain" at some description level, (or any
finite 3p description you want) by a digital computer, THEN a weak
form of computationalism is incompatible with a weak form of
physicalism. This can be used to reduce the mind-body problem to a
problem of justifying the beliefs in a physical reality by the average
universal number/machine. (I identify machines with their number
indice in some fixed universal enumeration).
I am agnostic about the existence of a primitive physical reality, but
"atheist" with respect to this when working in the computationalist
theory.
I have still no idea of what you assume. You seem to assume some
physical or psychological computational space, which makes not sense
to any ideally correct introspecting machines relatively to its most
probable universal implementations and neighbors. The + and * laws
above describe already the unique possible computational space, by the
Church-Turing-Post thesis/law. By its big but subtle redundancies, it
defines in arithmetic a "matrix" of "dreams" (computations seen in the
1p view), and the physical and psychological realities develop from
there, in a relative indexical way. Computationalism can exploit
computer science and mathematical logic to justify such proposition,
even constructively, making the comp theory falsifiable (up to some
technical nuances).
Many physicists assume (not always consciously) a primitive physical
reality. Do you? It seems you said that you do not, but then how you
define term like moment, time, present moment, etc. And from what? It
looks like you take for granted some hybrid 1p and 3p notions.
You seem also to assume special relativity? What does that mean if you
don't assume some physics?
You talk often about something you call reality. Is not reality
exactly what we are searching and what we should not taken for granted?
In "science" we start from what we agree on, if only momentarily, and
proceed. If not, there is no genuine attempt to communicate.
I hope you will succeed in clarifying your assumptions. I have still
no idea of your basic ontology. Keep in mind that with Church Thesis,
or with any known formal definitions, computation is a purely
arithmetical notion. You might keep in mind also that the arithmetical
reality is vastly greater than the computable reality, but both
interact/interfere in many relative ways.
Bruno
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:04:17 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
It's hard to stop arguing with an irrational person, isn't it? I've
already offered Edgar $100 to tell me any experiment that could be
carried out to falsify or validate his "theory" (that two separated
events occur in only one absolute order), but he immediately stopped
talking to me. An unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory.
And Edgar even admits his idea can't be rendered in mathematics
("like consciousness"). But *everything* in physics must be able to
be rendered into numbers, or it just ain't physics. That's not the
same as saying that only the quantifiable exists, but it does
demarcate a clear boundary between physics and metaphysics.
When Galileo showed theologians the mountains on the moon through
his telescope, which "couldn't exist" according to doctrine at the
time, because the moon had to be a perfect sphere, they invented ad
hoc an "invisible substance" that filled all the craters to the
exact tops of the mountains. Galileo agreed about the invisible
substance, but said it was piled twice as high on top of the
mountains as in the valleys! The invention of an ad hoc invisible,
unmeasurable, unfalsifiable time dimension to rescue the universal
present moment from relativity is a similarly disgraceful manouevre
to that which the cardinals attempted in order to rescue their
Aristotelian cosmos.
So far the only evidence that Edgar can evince for his theory is
that it's obvious to him. No maths. No suggested experiments. No
means of measurement except by some hand-waving reference to the
curvature of the universe (quote: "anyone know what that equation
would be?" Sir, we have no idea what you're talking about! It's
*your* theory!) No falsification possible except by fiat of Edgar
Owen. Don't hold your breath.
--
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.
