Bruno, you made my day. Reminds me of a Hungarian humorous author (P. Howard) who wrote about a blind philosopher (The Sleepy Elephant) and his assistant living in the deep Sahara - showing the Elephant's Life Oeuvre in a BIG book, the assistant was supposed to write as the old Blind Elephant dictated. It was all empty and the assistant asked somebody to inscribe: "I cannot write, but it makes him so happy when I pretend..." -
When reading your remarks I wonder what REALLY mean 'machine', 'comp', 'universal', and some more of your words I got used to over the past 2 decades, yet are not "clear"(??) enough in my mind to automatically click-in when used. Do you have a *glossary *I could download, to refresh those (brief!) meanings? I - and I believe some others, too - are immerged into our own vocabulary-meanings and to read your text requires a mental translation into your world of conceptualization. Maybe I am too old to do it 'en passant'. I cannot start reading your life's ouvre to get to those words. And sorry to denigrate your 'multiplication' into subtraction. One word about 'refutable': it was - as far as I know - Popper's criterion for the 'scientific'. I like to go further and dethrone it in cases when we just don't know enough - neither to produce a suitable refutation, nor even to catch a (real?) meaning of something new. Respectfully John M On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06 Jan 2014, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote: > > Dear Telmo > (I suppose a 'freer mind than several nat.-scientist listers) allow me > some musings (not that I want to hide them from the rest of the List). > Thinking of Bruno's *integer-restricted arithmetics* with addition and > subtraction only: > > > addition and multiplication (actually, just a detail). > > > > it is the* World Of ONE*, multiplied as much as you wish (two ways: + and > -). Numerals? > So we elevated to some understanding of the* "ONE"* (*unit?*) and our > uncontrollable mind made out of it the Entire World. Or we don't understand > even that 'one'; > Bruno applied his extremely educated (and disciplined) mind to elevate > this 'one' into sophisticated logical systems (what I never studied, sorry > to say). > > > I derived it from the computationalist *assumption*. > > > > There are also opinionated remarks about 'physical' (etc.?) *laws* with > fancy conclusions. > In my opinion a physical law is the summation of observations WITHIN > limits of our so far achieved knowledge and the 'majority' seems to be the > "norm" ('law'). Then comes the condiment: lots of math and similar > deductions and voila: our conventional sciences. > Extend the limits (of our observations? or knowledge?) and the "laws" > change. That happened in our (cultural? human?) history continually. I do > not appreciate the level at which we are today: it will change as it > changed from the past. > Societal (communal?) 'law' is different: it is a compromise between > interests of diverse classes of members of a society including the > powerfuls' as giving the overtone. > > Reality is beyond our (human) mental capabilities to detect, > > > It is beyond all machine's ability, not just the humans (I assume comp, of > course). All machine believing in a reality can discover that indeed most > of it will transcend his capacity, even when assuming comp. The ontology > becomes very simple (only 0 and its successor, or only the combinators K > and S, with their applications, ...), but the epistemology, which include > the physics, get infinitely complex and rich. > > > > I humbly disregard the "Slanted Realities" like mathematical, or > religious, etc. partial views. Same with truth. > I like to talk about my 'agnosticism' and *MY* beliefs based in it: the > 'infinite copmp[lexity' beyond our (limited) model of knowables (because I > cannot comprehend "infinite" - or - "complexity" as a simple-minded human). > > > We agree on this. The nice point is that absolutely all machines, when > correct, agrees with this, and discover it by themselves. > > > > > So after having passed an old fashioned rigorous Ph.D. at a 5century old > Universitas in chemistry, physics and math, published ~100 papers (both in > research and technical implementation of own results mostly in the > polymer-field) lectured on 3 continents and having gotten 38 patents to my > inventorship, I do not believe in 'atoms' (molecules?) > > > Nor do any correct machine when introspecting enough. > > > > and consider the physical world a 'human' makeup > > > It is a "machine" or "number" make up. Assuming comp. In that case the > reasoning is constructive, which means that the physical laws can be > deduced from the machine's (mathematical) points of view, and this makes > computationalism refutable. (That is the main point). > > > > for ever changing and poorly understood phenomena as their synthesis into > a 'scientifically balanced' conventional view which, however, produced lots > of (almost perfect?) practical results into our lives. > > Have a prosperous 2014 and then more to come > > > Happy New Year 2014! > > Bruno > > > > John Mikes D.Sc. > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Dear Stephen, >> > >> > >> > On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:21, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> > >> > Dear Bruno, >> > >> > I do not understand something. >> > >> > >> > >> > OK. (good!) >> > >> > >> > >> > Your idea >> > >> > >> > It is not an idea, but a result in an hypothetical context (or >> theoretical >> > context). >> > >> > >> > >> > seems to me to be a very sophisticated and yat sneaky way of >> reintroducing >> > Newton/Laplacean absolute time and/or Leibnitz' Pre-established Harmony. >> > >> > >> > It is only a remind of elementary arithmetic. The music 0, s0, ss0, >> sss0, >> > ssss0, sssss0, ssssss0, sssssss0, ... >> > You can see it as an elementary block digital time. If you want. And >> then >> > all other times are relative indexicals, including the physical and >> > subjective times. >> >> Bruno, >> >> I think I (perhaps naively) understand what you mean. My understanding >> is that, if comp is true, then the relationship between comp and the >> physical laws we observe is not a simple one. Even QM would be at a >> high level of abstraction in relation to raw reality. In this case, >> the recursive definition of integers would be the simplest possible >> expression of a fundamental building block that is responsible for >> time -- although the time we experience is a much more complex >> phenomena. >> >> It makes sense to me that time is strongly related to recursivity >> (maybe because of a CS background). I imagine moments being "copied >> forward" and changed in some fashion. >> >> Would you agree with these intuitions? >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > I recall reading how much Einstein himself loved the idea and was loath >> to >> > give it up, thus motivating his quest for a classical grand unified >> field >> > theory. Physics has moved on... >> > >> > >> > After Aristotle Physics has also moved on ... I think Einstein was >> right on >> > QM, and wrong on GR, in the sense that GR has to be justified by the >> > quantum, before, perhaps justifying the quantum by the "digital seen >> from >> > inside". >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > You recently wrote: >> > >> > "The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor >> > relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it >> is >> > only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. >> > >> > So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is >> given by >> > the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the >> > additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the >> numbers (or >> > any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). >> > >> > That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't >> attribute >> > consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) >> point >> > against this)." >> > >> > >> > Let me try to clarify how I am confused by this claim. >> > >> > >> > OK. >> > >> > >> > >> > How many different versions of the integers "exist"? >> > >> > AFAIK, there can be only One and it is this *One* that acts as the >> "time" >> > (maybe) in your argument for all other "strings" of integers. >> > >> > >> > ? >> > >> > I have no clue what you are talking about. I am talking about the usual, >> > standard, finite and non negative integers, also known as natural >> numbers. >> > I am not doing philosophy, so any problem you might have with this might >> > comes from unecessary over-interpretation you make, over what you have >> been >> > supposed to have learned in high school. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Are the "strings" distorted and/or incomplete "shadows" of the One? >> > >> > Are we permitted to use the allegory of the cave here? :-) >> > >> > >> > >> > Yes, but you need to do the work to understand the "real thing". We >> start >> > from arithmetic, that is: >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > or even just >> > >> > Kxy = x >> > Sxyz = xz(yz) >> > >> > ((K x) y) = x >> > (((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z)) >> > >> > And we stay in that theory. >> > >> > In that theory we define the observer by a believer in the axioms: >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > together with the infinity of beliefs in the following induction axioms >> > (with F any formula in logic + {0, s, +, *}): >> > >> > (F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x) >> > >> > Just that is already very long to do, but that is done in the >> literature and >> > is basically the "known" arithmetization of meta-arithmetic. >> > >> > Then incompleteness entails the nuances between proof and truth, and >> > consistency, and the double completeness theorem of Solovay provides >> the 8 >> > hypostases, and we see that the classical introspecting machines can >> > understand by herself that what she observe might be only the shadow of >> the >> > truth. >> > Indeed. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > How many "shadows" are there and how are they "distinguished" from each >> > other such that the notion of a computation is not lost? >> > >> > >> > By the study of the degrees of unsolvability. Notably. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > In my work I have found that theoreticians in computer science >> completely >> > take for granted that a computation is a process that can only occur in >> the >> > absence of randomness. >> > >> > >> > That is well studied. It is computability relativized to oracles. >> > Computability on random oracle has been studied. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Imagine if the atoms making up the CPU of your computer where to >> suddenly >> > start changing their positions and states due to outside interactions >> in a >> > random/uncontrolled way? >> > >> > >> > That happens when I smoke a psychotropic plant, if not when I breath the >> > polluted air. >> > >> > >> > >> > No computation would occur! >> > >> > >> > Let us not exaggerate. No need to smoke the grass of Fukushima. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > In fact, this is the situation that we find when, for instance, the >> cooler >> > fan fails and the CPU overheats. >> > >> > >> > >> > Yes. The hypostases might be used to study the 1p associated to such >> extreme >> > events. Would this give a NDE? Difficult questions, which needs some >> > technical progresses. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > My point here is that the string of states that is a von Neumann >> computation >> > >> > >> > von Neumann, Babbage, Turing, Church, Conway, Post, McCarthy, etc. OK. >> > >> > >> > >> > is something that has to be separable and/or isolated to be able to be >> said >> > to "occur" or -to use the Platonic metaphor- "exist". >> > >> > >> > We start from the "E" interpreted in the usual way, like in "16 has a >> > successor". >> > And gives 8 different notion of existences, in the eight hypostases >> (which >> > are each a mathematics with an intensional arithmetical interpretation). >> > >> > You get physics when you restrict the arithmetical interpretation on the >> > sigma_1 sentences, on the material hypostases. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > So, what exactly is separating the "strings of integers" from each >> other and >> > the One, such that we can coherently discuss them as actually being >> > computations and not just "representations of computations"? >> > >> > >> > The trueness of their relative association, together with their >> > redundancies. At the bottom, what do the separation are the additions >> and >> > multiplication, they separate the computations which halt from those who >> > does not halt, the first person views do the rest. >> > >> > Hope this helps. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Bruno >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Kindest Regards, >> > >> > Stephen Paul King >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
