Hi John!
> (I suppose a 'freer mind than several nat.-scientist listers)
Thanks! I'm not sure my mind is so free, but that's a goal I value at least.
> 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:
> 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).
>
> 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, 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).
>
> 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?)
When an experienced scientist like you says something like this, I pay
attention. Other should too. The current obsession with "productivity"
is an invitation for a "don't think, just act" mentality. Everything
that cannot be turned into a potentially successful paper doesn't
mater. And so, we through away the more subtle insights. Maybe we
throw away the stuff that actually matters.
When did you stop believing in atoms?
> and consider the physical world a 'human' makeup 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.
I agree.
> Have a prosperous 2014 and then more to come
Thanks, you too John!
Telmo.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
--
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.
