On 03 Feb 2014, at 00:19, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote (among many others) on Feb 1 in replying to my post of
Jan 31:
...mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that
the machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical
truth.
Then, yes, for the ontology, IF we assume comp, then the
mathematical, even the arithmetical reality, is shown to be complete.
But we stay agnostic on this, as we stay agnostic on comp itself.
Somehow you seem to be non agnostic on the question of reality. You
seem to talk like if you knew that reality is not the arithmetical
reality.
Then it just means that *your* theory is incompatible with the
computationalist hypothesis, and there are no problem with that
(especially that you did say recently that you don't say "yes" to
the doctor (which shows also that you are not agnostic on comp: you
believe it to be false).
Bruno
The first 2 par-s are contradictory.
?
Let us forget about 'ontology' for now, I consider it our 'figment'
of what we BELIEVE is existing around us.
What we assume publicly to be existing. I use "belief" in the sense of
"rational question", no in the sense of feeling that something is true
(which is private and useless in scientific debate).
If the 'machine's' epistemology is RICHER than math-truth (allow me
to substitute here: math. reality) then the 'overall' (infinite,
unknowable whatever REALITY cannot be restricted to the math-reality
(which - in your choice seems to be required to be specified
(=reduced in context) to "mathematical).
I know this is hard to understand. But arithmetic seen from inside is
bigger than arithmetic. I can use this to get a simple mathematical
ontology, which appears to prevent the reductionism on what is real
for us, as living being, or experiencing being.
I don't feel it like "non-agnostic".
It is non-agnostic if you derive from your experience that the
ontological reality is not arithmetical.
Your experience is not arithmetical, but you cannot infer from that an
ontology which would be non arithmetical.
If you remain open-minded (agnostic) on computationalism, you have to
remain open-minded on the possibility that the outer ultimate reality
is arithmetical truth.
Please keep in mind that after Gödel, we know that arithmetical truth
is a non axiomatizable reality. It escapes already all effective
theory. It is something big, and if we are machines, we can explain
that we are intrisically ignorant on it (even staying in the 3p
perspective).
The 'infinite(?) reality' (what we just do not know) without
specifying restrictions, includes domains like (your) machine
epistemology and others from the infinite complexity we have no
access to today.
I "never called" my narrative-based views a THEORY. My position - in
my opinion - does not state that 'comp' is false: it sais only that
it is incomplete and cannot be applied for 'final' conclusions to
draw from. I leave open a backdoor for unknowns.
For logical reason, comp cannot be incomplete. It is not a theory, but
a religious faith. Either you can survive with an artificial brain, of
you can't. But then the UDA shows that a tiny part of arithmetic
provides, in that hypothetical comp frame, a theory of everything,
which is indeed not completeable from inside, and has to refer to non
axiomatisable notion (like arithmetical truth). The point, then, is
that such a theory has testable consequence (it implies the physical
laws, indeed). Nowhere we pretend it is true, nor even personally
believed, but it is testable. If true, that gives the true explanation
of why there is both consciousness and matter. if false, we will be
able to abandon the theory. We cannot improve it, because if comp is
false, it is just false. We cannot improve "yes doctor", we can just
decide to say "no" to the doctor.
Bruno
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.
