Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011

[John Mikes]

(Including Stephens initiation of course).
After some time spent enjoying 2 heart attacks in 2010 I returned to
the computer and found similar discussions to the earlier ones.
Maybe the words changed, references, too, conclusions are more
sophisticated (?). SOME new members, as well
(Please, give me credit for all those poisons the medics stuffed me
withp impeding my brain and clarity of mind, if
I ever had any such thing.
What I see here is a Colin-position pointing to 'theoretical
justification of the validity of math-statements' and Bruno's position
based
on Bruno's position (comp included, valid, or not). Hard to argue
because all the sophistication is based on the present status of our
limited ignorance and unlimited explanatory breadth of Colin's
mini-solipsism (i.e. the part of the world we so far got a glimpse
of).
Our sciences dwell within and reach out in their conclusions to those
unknowables we 'imagine' (calculate?) from that partial view of the so
far experienced (and explained by the limited ways). Such is our
'scientific' view and I think none of us can be exempt to that.
We think what we think we know. We conclude within.

By such limited tools humanity established an incredible technology
and descriptions galore to explain it to ignorants within the
ignorance. Physics, engineering, bio, psych, etc. etc. And a
mathematics - so fundamental in Bruno's words(?) about numbers.
What we see is a complex interlacing of not always discernible items
allowing more to be involved.
Upon such views humanity could not have established its 'scientific'
(technological) results, but being anchored into it may interfere
with further understanding of the unknown. Of course we cannot think
beyond our mind-contents/function limited as it may be.
(My fundamentals among others: Colin and Robert Rosen).

What the WORLD is, if it exists (what does that mean?) what we call a
"universe" or "existence" is hazy. No outside view.

With best wishes to 2011 and beyond

John Mikes

[David Nyman]

John

Good to see you back - I wish you better health in 2011.

David

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi John!

 

    "No outside view"!!!! That is the point that I was trying to make from the start. This is why I keep repeating that Numerical Idealism is an insufficient theory of everything; there cannot be an "outside" that acts to distinguish numbers from each other! An interesting discussion of this can be found here: http://kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/time_XIV.pdf

 

 

Onward!

 

Stephen

[Colin Hales]

Hi John,
Sorry to hear about your 2010. I hope that 2011 allows your flavour of
feist to resume here on 'everything'.

I am at the very end of my PhD writeup and have been more flaky than
usual here. I was amused to see that I appeared to be advocating any
sort of XYXism or to be an 'XYZist'. It has always been a puzzle to me
how a declaration of the presence of XYZism somehow acts as any sort of
explanation of anything. To me, the explanation comes first. After that
you can sit around and debate whether the solution is a member of the
set of all XYZism solutions.

Interestingly, when I attempt to calibrate my developments as examples
of XYZism, I continually find myself somewhere in between. It's like
there's a multi-dimensional space of XYZisms, and my approach is a
single point in that space, and on no particular axis of it.

At this stage, my actual physical working proposition is based purely on
the properties of electromagnetism, and my cosmology results from
finding out what perspective exists from which electromagnetism delivers
consciousness. So maybe I am an 'electromagnetist'? :-)

This year I get to start building stuff. Exciting!

cheers
col

[Bruno Marchal]

Nice to hear from you John, I hope you will feel well. Happy 2011!

Bruno

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Right on and Onward - Stephen,

that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed "inside" our mind.

 

On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about 'wave as the FORM of energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked many physicists (and the best answer was: "Good question") WHAT IS THE MARVEL  YOU  PEOPLE  CALL -  E N E R G Y ?

Moving (changing) cannot come from the 'inside (view?)' otherwise why was 'it' in the position "to be moved/changed" FROM to begin with?

In my (naive) worldview going one little step back from the Big Bang(?) into a 'Plenitude' of everything in perfect (and unlimited) symmetry with total interaction (postulating violations of itself - as I tried to explain)

(Karl Jaspers Forum 2003 "Networks of Networks") where I tried to approach the 'motive' as the trend to RETURN to the symmetry from 'complexities' (like the Big Crunch, Black holes, infinite dissipation and similar daydreams). It may "DO" things assigned to that so called 'energy'.  

But this was also only MY daydream from WITHIN.

 

I tried to "trap" Bruno (whom I appreciate no end) into some idea HOW numbers can do ANYTHING (e.g. GENERATE a change/movement) but in vain. If 'universal numbers' (new to me after my 'vacation') can indeed compute,  they need initiation to do so. Our primitive embryonic computers have to be plugged into electricity to work. Otherwise they are expensive paperweights. What is a 'universal number' plugged in

to do anything? or is it only OUR thinking to do 'numbery' functions?

Where do WE draw our mobility from? Not from explanation/definition of how we act.

 

So - in spite of our agreement, dear Stephen, there MUST BE an outside view - we just don't get it. We may get the result of it and try to explain within our ignorance. In Colin's mini-solipsism. Chaque-un a son gout.

 

Thanks for reflecting to my post and best wishes to all

 

John

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi John,

 

    Umm, maybe the mind is like a Moebius strip? I would very much like to read your paper! Got a link?

 

Onward!

 

Stephen

From: John Mikes

Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:20 PM

To: everyth...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Bruno-Colin-dicussion Jan-2011

> mailto:everything-list%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at

> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "Everything List" group.

> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> mailto:everything-list%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John,

On 23 Jan 2011, at 18:20, John Mikes wrote:

Right on and Onward - Stephen,

that is my point as well. Our thinking loop is closed "inside" our mind.

 

On another list (psich etc. mainly) they babble about 'wave as the FORM of energy etc. and I asked the big question I have asked many physicists (and the best answer was: "Good question") WHAT IS THE MARVEL  YOU  PEOPLE  CALL -  E N E R G Y ?

Moving (changing) cannot come from the 'inside (view?)' otherwise why was 'it' in the position "to be moved/changed" FROM to begin with?

My point is only that IF we accept digital mechanism THEN the *appearance* of movement is an inside, first person, construction, due to the gap between what a machine (number) can prove and what is true.

If you believe that time is not a first person construction, then you have to believe that DM (digital mechanism, comp) is false.

That is all what I say, together with the fact that it is far easier to build a phenomenology of time and matter  from number and consciousness than the opposite (failure of aristotelian materialism).

The rest in math.

You insist a lot on human's limitations. You should appreciate that with DM, I insist a lot on machine's limitation. The beautiful thing is that Löbian machine (universal machine aware of their turing universality) are aware of those limitations, and that those limitation appears to have a creative role. The gap between their beliefs and truth conducts and differentiates the consciousness flux, in a way making the illusion of matter lawful. That's how God become able to forget who he is and become able to say hello to itself, even if sometimes he need an emailer ;)

In my (naive) worldview going one little step back from the Big Bang(?) into a 'Plenitude' of everything in perfect (and unlimited) symmetry with total interaction (postulating violations of itself - as I tried to explain)

(Karl Jaspers Forum 2003 "Networks of Networks") where I tried to approach the 'motive' as the trend to RETURN to the symmetry from 'complexities' (like the Big Crunch, Black holes, infinite dissipation and similar daydreams). It may "DO" things assigned to that so called 'energy'.  

But this was also only MY daydream from WITHIN.

 

I tried to "trap" Bruno (whom I appreciate no end) into some idea HOW numbers can do ANYTHING (e.g. GENERATE a change/movement) but in vain.

The relation between numbers are very rich and complex, as number theory illustrates. But the precise reason why we can say that, relatively to each other, the numbers compute, is already in Gödel fundamental 1931 paper. And in all good textbook on mathematical logic. It is long and tedious to proof this well, but the ideas are not so harder than the programming of any universal system in another. 

If any computer access a computational state, such a fact is already a theorem of (Robinson) arithmetic. Only states accessed by infinite, non local, analog, garden of Eden type, of infinite machines are not necessarily accessed by arithmetic 'even internally').

Remember that before Gödel we thought arithmetical truth to be accessed by machine. After Gödel we know that machine access about nothing, and can only scratch the surface. Arithmetic (unlike all arithmetical theories and machines) *is* very big.

Assuming we are machine, Gödel's theorem applies to us, and explain that we know about nothing about the capabilities of numbers and of machine.

The inability of (some) human to listen to machine might be (some) human limitation, perhaps. No?

If 'universal numbers' (new to me after my 'vacation') can indeed compute,  they need initiation to do so.

Universal number are just "universal machine", that is computer, in the mathematical sense. Once you fix a theory, digital machine can be identified with the number which describes the machine in the theory. I have fixed the theory: it is Robinson Arithmetic, so I identify machine and numbers. And so, I talk about universal numbers instead of universal machine. It makes directly clear that e are talking about something finitely describable. Universal number can be defined and proved to exist in Robinson Arithmetic (which is just the definition of the successor relation"+1", addition and multiplication). Universal machine or numbers are finite thing, unlike Turing machine when taken to much literally. A LISP interpreter is a finite program, and it defines a universal number.

Our primitive embryonic computers have to be plugged into electricity to work.

Our material (but not necessarily *primitively* material) computers needs this. But if you believe in number theory, you can see that a mathematical computer can mathematically compute without being implemented in a physical reality. Physical reality appears as sum on all those non material implementation in arithmetic by the UDA+MGA argument. Matter has to be an indexical.

Have a nice day, John, I appreciate your concern and open mindness. Please remind that I am not pretending anything about reality, just that IF mechanism is TRUE, then Plato is closer to the truth than Aristotle. But Mechanism might be wrong, sure. But this we don't know yet, and if mechanism is true, we will remain forever undecided about it. Mechanism is not believable by the first person. In a sense the first person are NOT machine, from the first person point of view, they are not even self-nameable. They are "meta-axiomatizable" at the propositional level (S4Grz1), but not beyond (I think).

Mechanism is a belief in a form of reincarnation. It *is* a religion. A such, and in practice it is more a question of right, than a question of truth. It is both the right to say yes to the doctor, as to say no.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> My point is only that IF we accept digital mechanism THEN the
> *appearance* of movement is an inside, first person, construction,
> due to the gap between what a machine (number) can prove and what is
> true.
>

It is interesting you say this. Is your reasoning for this that the logic of Bp
& p enables Kripke frames, which can be identified with the passage of
time?

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Jan 2011, at 11:31, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> My point is only that IF we accept digital mechanism THEN the
>> *appearance* of movement is an inside, first person, construction,
>> due to the gap between what a machine (number) can prove and what is
>> true.
>>
>
> It is interesting you say this. Is your reasoning for this that the
> logic of Bp
> & p enables Kripke frames, which can be identified with the passage of
> time?

The logic of Bp & p, that is S4Grz, and its computationalist variant,
S4Grz1 (Bp & p + p -> Bp), enables Kripke frames, like most so called
normal modal logic systems, which appears, in this S4 case, to be a
valuable temporal modal logic. In fact S4Grz is even more temporal, or
"subjective-time temporal (cf Bergson's duration) because S4Grz = S4 +
Grz, and Grz imposes antisymmetry for the relation of accessibility
among worlds/states(*): times seems to fly irreversibly.

But S4Grz enables also intuitionistic logic, which is often related to
a logic of evolving knowledge, and which made Brouwer linking
consciousness and time.
Boolos and Goldblatt discovered independently the arithmetical self-
referential S4Grz. Roughly speaking G proves Bp & p when S4Grz proves
Bp.

What is remarkable is that S4Grz = S4Grz*. The G* (true) level does
not add anything. This explains the confusion between truth and
provability made by the pure (solipsistic) first person (the first
person forgetting the existence of other persons).

Note that in the material hypostases, the one with "& Dt" (or "& Dp"),
we lost the Kripke accessibility, and get topological neighborhoods
instead, which is coherent with physicalness and the continuum of
consistent computational continuation needed for the emergence of the
physical laws.

Bruno

(*) Grz is the rather awkward B(B(p -> Bp) -> b) -> p, discovered
earlier by Sobocynski. Grzegorczyk rediscovered it in the context of
axiomatizing a modal form of propositional intuitionist logic.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/