Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

[Paul Werbos]

The foundations of mathematics is an important and serious area of research, where more work is needed. It was interesting to read a post here on those issues:

On Dec 25, 2017 7:32 PM, "Bruno Marchal" <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

..

Yes, it is more like the second option. All we need to assume is one universal machinery, in the mathematical sense of Emil Post, Stephen Kleene, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church.

...

So I use the numbers, although I would use the combinators

...

But it is hard to sum up many years of research in few lines. I really invited you to read my papers(*), and maybe ask question.

...

The relation with your work, or Paul Werbos, is that the "correct" understanding of the physical should match the universal machine introspective understanding of it, which is eventually that special statistic.

Penrose and Ed Nelson of Princeton gave really great talks on the foundations and varieties of mathematic, at the First International Conference on Consciousness in Tokyo (UNU) 1999. I was disappointed not to see many of the good plenary talks in the conference book, No Matter Never Mind, edited by Kunio Yasue. 

For Einstein realism, it is enough to decide that nonlinear partial differential equations (PDE) make sense, and that agreed basic mathematics is enough of a foundation to explore them. For neural network mathematics, applicable in study of machine learning, brains AND noospheres, the required assumptions about basuc mathematics are even fewer. But there is a lot we do not yet know about PDE in basic mathematics, and I often feel very sad I have not found people willing and able to address some of the most important basic questions.

Do nonlinear PDE really make sense? Since tgey make sense to me, and i have enough questions i really worry about, i dont spend much of my own time on that. But my wife Luda (who has 2 PhDs to my 1 by US accrediation rules) worked with a guy named Alex Zenkin who looked very deeply into the contuum hypothesis,  which is perhaps the main issue here. I did what i could (not enough) to support his ideas for an international QED project. That project would have developed a multilingual online database of true theorems with machine-verified proofs, and tools to help people prove them. In fact, many published "theorems" are not even true. 

But .. must end this email now.. other events...

So I can compare the physics "in the head of the universal machine/number" with the theories made by those who observe nature and have understandable theories.

On the other side of the coin, IF your ~numbers/Turing swap-in device is going to report results and share findings with its replicated progeny, I am pretty sure you will need the carbon-water-based equipment to protein-fold the noises that can later be agreed upon with replicated progeny. ...

I so wish this to be true. It would mean that carbon-water-based equipment is derivable from elementary arithmetic. To be clear, this is an open problem, and at first sight, "water" seems more "accidental", but that is very hard to say.

Or a similar/analogous set of  environmentally resonant, symbionic,  cyclic flow-chains  -- as in, like the carbon cycle, water cycle, phosphorus cycle, nitrogen cycle, etc., and various photosynthetic-aerobic-anaerobic, plus the enfolding fluctuating fields and associated paraphernalia involved in running such transactions. 

There is a more sort of primitive life in all universal machineries. In fact I discover an explanation of replication by studying bacteria, and then I discovered that the main idea appeared also in Gödel's technic of proof. There is an abstract theory of self-reproduction valid in all universal machinery. Biology, physics, and theology are "universal machine independent". They do not depend on which universal machinery you start with. 

Or, are you saying, after hearing the agreed upon stories told to you  by your ancestors about numbers,  that the numbers ARE the underlying ~thing,

For the "start" of everything, any universal machinery would do. If you start from the combinators, the numbers will impose themselves as a logical gift. If you start with the numbers, you will get the combinators as a logical gift. Like the Indra net, you can see each universal (number, combinator, ...) as reflecting all others universal numbers (and more: the "societies of interacting numbers", all multi-user video games, etc.

The physical reality "emerges" in a logical arithmetical sense, from the whole net of all universal machineries. But some universal machineries get more importance than other with respect of the relative inside view, like apparent physical universe and laws/language, or like you and me as each human beings can (easily when we master the definition) shown to be universal machinery themselves.

or, is it, that given both, adding and multiplying, say, ~vector fields in knot-forming ways can either create, or appear to re-create (or describe) "artifacts of the ~physical world" 

If se start from elementary arithmetic, we add and multiply only natural numbers. We never try to imitate a physical phenomena, because that is impossible, the physical phenomena is a sort of first person plural probable dream. It is obtain by a sport of sum on infinities of computations, and is not a priori computable.

The physical reality inherit from the arithmetical reality a large part of its non Turing emulability. The arithmetical truth is far beyond the computable truth. That is provable and proved, when we assume the Post-Kleene-Turing-Church's thesis.

-- things I characterize as reality being nested structured~duality? 

Yes, from inside you will have nested layers of universal machinery. Even your laptop has already many layers of universal coding operating below your keyboard.

Nature seems to exploit that all the times.

And that (you feel) there is little or no way to discern which is  the case? (Which I might possibly agree with in a mud-wrestling sort of way.)

I assume digital mechanism, and then reason. This transforms the interesting questions in (often complex) mathematical computer-science-theoretical problem.

Thanks to the vast amount of work already done, it is not hard to build a way to get a third person theory of the first person knower, despite the first person is not identifiable to any third person notion (neither physical, nor mathematical). The soul of the machine seems to know she is not a machine!

...more below...

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 20 Dec 2017, at 18:10, Ralph Frost wrote:

Bruno, 

I like parts of your theory about mechanism and numbers and swapping in Turing devices for parts of brains, though I don't track on many of its details or nuances. It sounds nice, in places.   

However,  I wonder about two things: materials and energy, and also, how numbers develop associations.

Numbers alone are not enough, even with the succession laws, and even with addition and the induction axioms. But with addition and multiplication, then even without induction, we get all the associations needed to prove the existence of universal machine (in the mathematical sense of Church-Turing) and *all* its computations. This is not obvious, but the main technical difficulties were already solved in Gödel's 1931 paper. 

In the model I develop (which is closer to my exposure in environmental engineering than numbers in math/CS), I ~get or envision getting an internal representation of surroundings in 6^n  structurally coded ordered water stacks forming during our respiration reaction (inside cells/neurons).  Here, yes, I guess ~consciousness (or structural coding) is a carbon- and water-based (nested, sp^3 hybridized, hydrogen-bonding)  ~mechanism. 

Quantum mechanics is Turing emulable (unless you postulate that the wave-packet reduction is a physical phenomenon).

So, all of quantum mechanics is emulated in arithmetic. That is not enough to explain the appearance of the quantum, as with Mechanism, as I explain in mots of my papers, we need to prove that the physical appearance (like the quantum) emerges from the statistics on all first person experiences.

We can define the first person experience with Theaetetus' definition (a non trivial consequence of incompleteness), and when we do the math we get a quantum propositional logic where the (proposition) laws of the observable is expected. 

So your approach can still work, maybe carbon and water-based and your nested structure will be recovered. A lot of work remains to show that.

Yet, how I have this coupled, the structural codings for surroundings also ~have a synergetically linked  energy value or energy conservation value which I am sort of thinking of as a relevant meaning, even if I just drop down to assessing only fight/flight/freeze in such codings.    In this way, through the materials of construction the  energy values  automatically have or acquire a "meaning". 

You might elaborate on this. It seems to me that meaning has deeper non physical roots, as we get it (or close) by using the definition of Theaetetus (sometimes called "the standard theory of knowledge"). The idea is to define knowledge by the conjunction of provability and truth. I might explain more, but I guess I would have to explain a bit of mathematical logic, notably the fact that (effective) provability never entails truth (by incompleteness no consistent machine can prove that provable(p) -> p, for any arithmetical proposition p.

[rf] To ~elaborate, and hopeful not just repeat, in the thing I am visualizing, down in the guts of our mitochondria we are all running the (biochemical) aerobic respiration reaction  which combines food plus about 160 kg oxygen per person per year and ~forms some energy flow, carbon dioxide, and about 10^20 water molecules per second (body-wide, at all respiration sites).  The "structured~duality" of a water molecule is ~akin to an n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron and so, one can quickly visualize such a molecule/tetrahedral sp^3 hybrized bonding pattern  can orient in, say, six ways within an enfolding cube (~field) leading to n-molecules in a sequence being able to form in 6^n combinations. [Ex. n=12; 6^12 = 2.2 billion] 

I visualize that repeating vibrations within the surroundings select out the same or similar  6^n 'structurally coded' stacks of water molecules so therein respiring also provides an internal representation of surroundings.  Stacks of water molecules are also packets of hydrogen bonding which can and do influence protein-folding (and other transactions). Protein-folding ~is expression. 

When I say this structural coding is closely coupled with energy collection and conservation, I do that because the respiration reaction supplies both: energy flow  AND the structurally coded ~representation.  The latter is like a freebie sidebar of our sustenance reaction supplying our energy.   So, in a loose or intuitive way by saying each experience/structurally coded representation has an 'energy value', it's due to the close coupling.  Suggesting this as relating to an inherent 'meaning'  comes from the linkage of the respiration reaction being central to providing our sustenance.  ~Thus --What is it?-- structural codings of experiences that tend toward benefit prompt or lean toward ~agreeable expression, whereas, tendency toward distress prompt for disagreement or avoidance (~just in the structural coding).  ~Such meaning is naturally relevant due to the coding's direct coupling with sustaining energy supply/conservation. (Aka, attractive-repulsive synergy is at work.)

This close coupling with energy supply is in contrast  to, say, other types of structural coding, like with synaptic alignments or firings where, miminally, there is an entirely  different or longer chain of links back to to core sustenance and thus not a connection (or such a direct connection) to core "energy meaning/value".    

Maybe an example, though likely a muddled one:  the close roar of a carnivore, prompts the over-riding hydrogen-bonding signal for flight, leading, on averages, to sustenance. Conceivably, even some such patterns can be conveyed or on-boarded via the slower  genetic or epigenetic structural coding.  

That may not help clarify...

Thank you. I like mitonchondria. I think that the eucariotic cell is already a mini-colony of bacteria and perhaps viruses. And I do appreciate the role of water, which for me is already a form of terrestrial life.

My interest relies in the origin of both consciousness and matter, afterlife, enlightenment(s) and altered states of consciousness, and what all this could mean. What can rational beings prove, and not prove about such things. The fact is that the universal machine get quickly the understanding, when introspecting itself (in the Cantor-Gödel way) that there is something transcending them, and somehow, that truth transcend them.

As for your """that meaning has deeper non physical roots""" and """...knowledge by the conjunction of provability and truth...   .....(effective) provability never entails truth""",  I think you may be talking of downstream book-learning or speaking, already armed with a thick dictionary in hand.   

The idea that knowledge is true justified opinion is often called the standard theory of knowledge. I leads to a S4 theory, where knowing(p) entails p true, knowing(p) -> knowing(knowing(p)), etc.

I'm not suggesting you and the ancient Greeks are ~wrong, 

My point is that theory given already by the introspecting universal machine is testable. (then I show that QM-without-collapse confirms it).

To me, you are just working at a different  and somewhat more dissociated level of organization in the overall NSD. 

I agree. Yet, if you are right, we should meet at the center of the bridge, when unravelling the layering and the nesting.

Along my storyline, which explicitly recognizes the NSD,   

Arithmetic entails the NSD, trivially if we assume Mechanism, but also by simple math. keep in mind that before Gödel we taught that the natural finite things and laws were simple to analyse. After Gödel we have made the gignatic progress in understanding that we know almost nothing, and the full analysis/set-theories can only scrathc the surface of the arithmetical reality.

I notice that words are sort of secondary, trailing artifacts or influential echoes, even the number-words,  which ~appear first and always into existence via the hydrogen-bonding protein-folding  sequences.  So, I am saying that the 'provability never entailing truth', may arise moreso because of consensus and/or inter-generational agreements... at least in some or many cases.  Or, perhaps, ~truth is the NSD that the herd currently agrees upon and consensus, agreement, and sustenance are the "standards of knowledge".

I am not sure I understand. If you doubt that there is a solution to the equation x = 2 + 1, I am in trouble.

A case in point, I suppose, is my term "nested structured~duality".

And I doubt you can formalize the NSD without assuming numbers. The notion of nesting do assume numbers I would say.

I made it up a few years ago, along with some other terms so as to name the underlying, more unified general principle. Previously it was an ineffable feeling.  Someday it may enter a dictionary, or not...   So, protein-folding, then repeatability and consensus come first.  Later on, or sooner, the term  will be revised, replaced, dropped from use, forgotten.    The nested structured~duality it points at or references, though, will still persist. Is there empirical proof? Obviously, pervasive, ubiquitously.

I don't think that the notion of proof applies to the empirical reality. We have theories, and we progress when we refute those theories. If you formalize the NSD, I think you will build another universal machinery, then we can test it on the mind-body problem, by finding a device and some prediction. 

Do all logical systems and paradigms follow the NSD pattern?  My impression is, yes, rather than no.

To me, such patterns also seem  quite non-physical. They are just more easily visualized when dressed as we already or somewhat agree upon them being as how they exist, resonate, and flow within our local system.  I believe this notion is magnified for me because I have "switched" from the xyz-cubic format (which I think but do not know -- surmise, project) that pervades your Hamiltonians and nested Hamiltonians, to the nature-pervasive tetrahedral format. Or nitpicking: to the magnetic tetrahedral format.

I ~see how that story works in my model, but don't see such automatic integration, say, in your proposed partial brain substitutions or Turing replacement devices, and perhaps even in the quantum mechanical storylines.  For non-integrated processes, do you propose to just add look-up mechanisms to get associations, and not have them create themselves on the fly? 

All associations emerges from addition and multiplication. Very elementary arithmetic is Turing universal. It is well known by the experts in the filed since about the thirties of the 20th century, but alas, this is ignored in physics, metaphysics and theology (which for historical reasons do not interested the logicians).

Also, if judgements on sustainability decisions are coupled with the energy supply reaction, won't you need to perfectly replicate and add that mechanism also in all your substitutions?

I need only the Turing universality, completely provided by elementary arithmetic. Although the quantum is relatively easy to derive, the "hamiltonian" (if that exists) is less easy (and might be more geographical than physical), but we can already derive that if there is an hamiltonian, it has to described a reversible highly symmetrical physics, and I guess we will recover energy as an invariant for some symmetries. 

But we cannot add anthing to elementary arithmetic. Even if we find a correct subset of the laws of physics from arithmetic, mechanism would be refuted in case we have to add anything, like energy, to it. Indeed, it would mean that energy has some non Turing emulable property requires for consciousness being selected in such physics, instead of a physics merging from all computations seen from inside (in the Gödel's (+ Theaetetus) self-referential manner). More on this later, very plausibly.

Best regards,

Bruno

[rf] You can't add things, but can you "nest" them or is "nesting " requirement in your storyline, too?

(I was re-commenting old paragraph for reason of people having some more information). I am back in time now.

The nesting is due to the fact that relatively to a universal number, you get number emulating number emulating number, etc. You even circular sequence of emulation, self-modifying spiraling emulation, etc. Elementary arithmetic dovetails on all of them, but the 1p view get nested to up to spomethi,g which look like Plotinus One, Intellect, Soul, Intelligible-Matter and Sensible Matter.

Please do pardon my math and logic ignorance, if possible,  since I do not and perhaps cannot yet or even track on the Turing universality/number substitution storyline that you and other experts already appreciate. 

What I presently visualize as the thing you are  describing,  is like or akin to a solar powered programmable calculator or a battery-powered programmed pacemaker. It has ALL the features you describe as long as it has you or a person like you to push the buttons and interpret the signals. But  it cannot push the buttons or does it have, say, a mechanism for any motive so as to be able to do so, particularly as related to optimizing its own and its progenies' group sustenance and replication. 

In this way I understand or else grossly mis-understand that the Numbers/Turing Device/Mechanism is a description cast in number-words but that the ~actual addition and multiplication is first and always ~truly or more functional only in the  operating ~atomic/molecular patterns, as in our ~carbon-/water-based analog math nested mechanisms.

I knew you were (still) Aristotelian. My point is all this can bested by comparing the physics inside the "head of the universal number" with the empirical observation. then I can argue that the preliminary results favor the immaterialism of the platonic machine/number.

Again, within the xyz-cubic/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality  that I assume or project you of running, it may be impossible for you to "logically" describe or recognize the underlying synergy/resonance/replication pattern in any other descriptive or modeling way.  (So emphasized is the abstract math in that instance of NSD.)

The abstract math lingo is valuable, particularly within the xyz-cubic instance, but it, too, rides on the underlying (tetrahedral) carbon-/water-based analog math.

Or, so it seems to me. 

As you can guess we differ on this, although as a scientist I am neutral and only attempt to be enough clear so that we can test/refute, or confirm (in which case we don't  lean much).

I think you might improve your theory by taking the times to look at the (non natural) numbers like the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions. There are also interesting relationship between molecular orbitals and the additive theory of numbers (natural number partition). 

Also, if Rieman Hypothesis is true, it is possible that the prime numbers already mimic a quantum computer, leading to shortcut between number theory and physics (but they miss all the modes of consciousness, and could lead to a form of arithmeticalism which would be as incomplete as physicalism).

Best regards and Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, best wishes,

Bruno

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

Best regards,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Seeking a thought worthy of speech.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Kashyap, Avtar, Vinod ji, Paul, Joe, and Roman, and others

On 17 Dec 2017, at 18:42, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Roman,

Vimal: Mathematical does not mean physical or mental; it is abstract. SEs will NOT appear in Mathematics unless you clearly show us where they come from.

Poznanski: You question is ambiguous. SEs to you mean concepts that are pure and nonphysical. So to begin to agree with each another it is essential for you to agree that there is no pure SE but only SE with epistemological object. The mathematics has shown that SEs originate in ordered water and upon interaction with classical solitons,  the epistemological object carries the energy of the SE.

Vimal: By SEs, I mean, whatever we experience on our daily basis. For example, when a trichromat looks a ripe tomato, s/he experiences the redness as the hue component of its color. My meaning is crystal clear and any layperson can understand because s/he experiences every moment in her/his mundane life.

I do not understand what you precisely mean by the terms “pure,” “nonphysical,” “epistemological object” and “energy of the SE”. “SEs originate in ordered water and upon interaction with classical solitons” cannot be true because we cannot create SEs from non-experiential matter. This is a perfect example of materialistic voodoo-ism because it seems like a magic or a miracle, which is worst than religious superstitions.

When are you going to provide an experiment can reject your own framework as I have provided for the eDAM? Until you do that, DiaMat is a pseudo-science.

We partially agree I think. Consciousness is a pure first person notion. It cannot be equated with anything third-person describable. But it can be explained by computer science which shows that all numbers, when considered in (sophisticated Turing universal) relations with other numbers cannot avoid the discovery that most of their knowledge is not third person justifiable. So, with Mechanism, the hard problem becomes easy, as it needs only a bit of Gödel metamathematics (alias mathematical logic). Logicians knows that no theory/machine/number/finite-things/digital-things can ever describe effectively their own semantics, but also they know that all of them, among the "sufficiently rich one (having enough induction axioms), can justify that fact (the fact that they cannot describe their own semantics). 

The mind-body problem is then reduced into a justification of the appearance of matter from the logic of self-reference. The Aristotelian materialism *is* a sort of voodoo-trick made by universal numbers when doing high quality prestidigitation with themselves. Physics becomes a statistics on all computations going through our first person (plural) mental state. That can be tested, and up to now, we get a quantum logic which makes nature confirming the mechanist objective (arithmetical) idealism/non-materialism. 

It is hard to explain shortly, but before "illumination" the God of the machine can be approximated with the "full arithmetical truth" (something highly not Turing emulable), and after "illumination", it can be taken as the (very tiny, Turing-emulable though) sigma_1 truth. (But it is a blasphemy to not recall that we are working under the assumption of Mechanism, which requires some act of faith).

There is no obligation to listen to the (rich, Löbian) universal machine, nor to believe in what they say, but it is a fact that they do have a very rich theology (taken in the antic sense of Truth), which is testable/refutable due to the fact that like the old greek-Indian theology, they contain a cosmogony and a theory of matter (appearances).

Theology, with and without mystical experiences or near death experience, must come back at the academy of science where it was born, so that we can, like here actually, discuss and present theories and try them. Coming back to science consists mainly in training oneself to doubt all theories. Only the clear enough theories can be refuted and improved. We must understand our very notion of understanding, and relate it to our experiences, even the non communicable one.

Kind regards,

Bruno

Rām

----------------------------------------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday 17 December 2017, 8:55:38 PM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:

​Vimal: Mathematical does not mean physical or mental; it is abstract. SEs will NOT appear in Mathematics unless you clearly show us where they come from.

Poznanski: You question is ambiguous. SEs to you mean concepts that are pure and nonphysical. So to begin to agree with each another it is essential for you to agree that there is no pure SE but only SE with epistemological object. The mathematics has shown that SEs originate in ordered water and upon interaction with classical solitons,  the epistemological object carries the energy of the SE.  

Virus-free. www.avast.com

-------
 

Prof Roman R. Poznanski,

Director of Artificial  Consciousness Laboratory

Department of Clinical Sciences

Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel:  +607-555-8496
Mobile:  +60-14-2347351 
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com

 

and

Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal-of-integrative-neuroscience/

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Roman,

4a. "For Bohm, the original source is dual-aspect super Implicate Order (the unified field in the eDAM) or triple-aspects (matter, mind, consciousness) in single aspect (cosmic consciousness) Vedic 3-in-1 model, which carries the information related to the experiencer and our SEs. But you reject it and assume that it miraculously appears at the molecular level."

--->Not at all. We don't assume it appears at the molecular level as a miracle. We show it mathematical and hopefully experimentally in the future. 

Vimal: Mathematical does not mean physical or mental; it is abstract. SEs will NOT appear in Mathematics unless you clearly show us where they come from.

4b. What is the original source of “active information” 

--> the quantum potential. A form of subtle energy.

Vimal: This is still a physical energy, which lack SEs. Bohm has assumed dual-aspect in it but you reject it.

2a. What are the Electro-ionic and Electro-magnetic pathways? 

-->Electro-ionic pathways are those where ionic flow is present, e.g. axons, large dendritic shafts, extra synapses.  EM pathways constitute ordered water within and external to the neurons. It is the origin of  hydro-ionic wave. Note the reference of ionic is deliberate to denote its fusion with the electro-ionic  pathways. It is a quantum-like soliton.

Vimal: OK. But both pathways do not have a single trace of SEs because it is materialism, where non-experiential matter is the only fundamental substance. In other words, they describe only the physical aspect or neural basis. The best they can do is to explain cognition, but NEVER SEs.

4c. How can “active information” bridge the e-gap if it is materialism based?

----> The interaction between quantum-like and classical solitons.

Vimal: This is total voodoo-ism that quantum-classical interaction will yield SEs.

How do you address the rest 1,3,5, rest of 2 and 4?

I hope you understand that I am making effort to sharpen your framework so have patience. Do not get irritated.

Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

------------------------------ ----------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday 17 December 2017, 6:25:57 PM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:

​"For Bohm, the original source is dual-aspect super Implicate Order (the unified field in the eDAM) or triple-aspects (matter, mind, consciousness) in single aspect (cosmic consciousness) Vedic 3-in-1 model, which carries the information related to the experiencer and our SEs. But you reject it and assume that it miraculously appears at the molecular level."

--->Not at all. We don't assume it appears at the molecular level as a miracle. We show it mathematical and hopefully experimentally in the future. 

What is the original source of “active information”

​--> the quantum potential. A form of subtle energy. ​

What are the Electro-ionic and Electro-magnetic pathways?

​-->Electro-ionic pathways are those where ionic flow is present, e.g. axons, large dendritic shafts, extra synapses.  EM pathways constitute ordered water within and external to the neurons. It is the origin of  hydro-ionic wave. Note the reference of ionic is deliberate to denote its fusion with the electro-ionic  pathways. It is a quantum-like soliton.

​How can “active information” bridge the e-gap if it is materialism based?

----> The interaction between quantum-like  and classical solitons.

Cheers!

Roman 

-------
 

Prof Roman R. Poznanski,

Director of Artificial  Consciousness Laboratory

Department of Clinical Sciences

Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel:  +607-555-8496
Mobile:  +60-14-2347351 
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski. blogspot.com

 

and

Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/ journal-of-integrative- neuroscience/

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Roman,

1. What is the original source of “active information” (before Big Bang) and what ways it differs from “passive information”? You just cannot assume on the way anything after the creation of our universe.

2. What there are two brains in one single brain and what it is different from the split-brain concept?  What are the Electro-ionic and Electro-magnetic pathways? What are the physics and physiology behind it and where are they located in cortical and sub-cortical areas? Give us examples to understand clearly in detail.

3. On what basis did you categorize Electro-ionic for cognition (functional sub-aspect of consciousness in terms of eDAM) and Electro-magnetic (experiential sub-aspect of consciousness) pathways?

4. How can “active information” bridge the e-gap if it is materialism based?

For Bohm, the original source is dual-aspect super Implicate Order (the unified field in the eDAM) or triple-aspects (matter, mind, consciousness) in single aspect (cosmic consciousness) Vedic 3-in-1 model, which carries the information related to the experiencer and our SEs. But you reject it and assume that it miraculously appears at the molecular level.

5. No experiment to reject it.

1-5 are voodoo-ism unless you make it clear that is acceptable to this group. 

Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

------------------------------ ----------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday 17 December 2017, 3:45:33 PM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:

Ram, 

DiaMat has no jargon  It expends Bohm's ideas without the implicate order and includes nonreductive physicalist ontology with teleological functionalist epistemology. The  framework is focused at the mechanization of subjectivity in the EM pathways and not on cognition in the electro-ionic pathways. However, the framework  uses active information as a bridge across the e-gap and this is not voodoo-ism since Bohm's effect has been shown to exist in semi-conductors. The verification in  biomolecules has hurdles, but it will be overcome in the years to come . ​In addition to active information we use the two-brains hypothesis:

1. Electro-ionic pathways is the domain of cognition, i.e. ability to process information.

2. Electro-magnetic pathways is the domain of consciousness, i.e. the activity of information.

Roman

Virus-free. www.avast.com

-------
 

Prof Roman R. Poznanski,

...

[Diego Lucio Rapoport]

Dear Paul,

you mentioned the late Alexander Zenkin's work (Computer Science Institute, Moscow, RAS) on the continuum hypothesis. Please allow me to suggest further elaborations of this in the book by Nathaniel Hellerstein (Diamond Logic) and further its relation to supradual logophysics, non-linear pdes and chaos, and further to biological development in my trilogy, starting with

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311713431_Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_Self-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_Evolution_Part_I_Morphomechanics_Space_and_Time_in_Biology_Physics_Cognition_Non-Linearity_and_the_Structure_of_Uncertainty

Best wishes for 2018

Diego Lucio Rapoport

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdPURxWSrYTpesceCrkKt0DwEXe5QW1UrAsWyifDebS%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ralph Frost]

Paul, 

Thanks for the questions  and comments far below.   I sort of get the impression that you, Bruno, Church, Godel, et.al., are sort of deeply enamoured with your number-words and their elegance and their many, many very useful and helpful and even transcendent abstracted associated rules and mechanisms.   I like them, too, even though am quite ignorant and incapable in them, and I do appreciate that you and others with the aptitude and vocabulary continue to develop such expressions.  

In the storyline I am advocating, rather than split or dissociate  abstract math off into the imagined separate xyz-cubic partition, the analog math I start with unfolds with the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron: n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.This provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states differing  in increments of one-half spin and, concurrently, a moderately accurate yet approximate  "look and feel" model of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns  pervasive thoughout life, ourselves and a very large fraction of our surroundings.  "Nesting" these primary five states within an enfolding (cubic) structure generates an additional ten recognizable ~secondary states, illuminating the underlying general principle of "nested structured~duality" and that nested structure generate multiple states; pointing toward nested fields within nested fields being fundamental.  

In my continued fiddling with particularly the n2s2 state/pattern I developed a way to visualize that as we live and breathe, the similarly patterned  ~10^20 water molecules  per second forming in our aerobic respiration can form a ~6^n structurally coded internal analog math representation of our surroundings.  So, I have become enamoured with the s^3 hybridized bonding "carbon-water-based" analog math that we are ALL running. 

In this storyline, structural coding in the ordered water ~always has some sustenance-related energy-value meaning, and words, including the numbers-words  emerge downstream as hydrogen-bonding packets unfurl in sequenced patterns of protein-foldings (expressions). 

In this way, I suppose, I have a visualizable model of the nested structural coding, roughly, in a tetrahedral motif, including our genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, respirational, etc., structural coding that forms ~naturally, represents ourselves and our surroundings, and give some account for meaning, expression and perhaps creativity. Additionally, due to the addition of new vocabulary, the term "consciousness" can be relegated t the bin holding "phlogiston" if one desires.  That is, fifty-nine flavors and types of consciousness are not defined in terms of "consciousness" but emerge as structural coding and  nested structural coding, you know, more accurately reflecting  within the nested fields within nested fields. 

So, we seem to have a difference in our perspectives or in our schools of thought....  Er, but even when I admit and write that I still notice that both groups are  still using the  same "carbon-water-based" primary systems to conceptualize, scribble out and advocate their various instances of nested structured~duality.   Moreover, I admit I don't get informed of "sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding" (and essentially most everything else) except due to the developments within the "numerical/xyz-cubic" school of thought.   So, what we have is a difference in expression, or as I like to say, a difference in instances of nested structured~duality.  

You folks pick cube for structure, or for initial/primary structure, maybe with increments already named and presorted or ordered along a line, then you add duality to get ~negative numbers and add additional directions to get the cubic (already nested) structured~duality.   Then, as someone wrote, you investigate the nested levels of organization, albeit in a somewhat un-sub-conscious way via first, second and third derivatives, etc.,  but it seems to uneducated folks like me that you don't and never do admit to working with (and thus assuming: holding the tenet of) a fundamentally ~nested system.  Even when ~you collapse space and time into space-time, ~you appear to ignore or deny the fundamental inner nested structured~duality.  

Or perhaps you ignore or deny it only because you just lack the vocabulary, despite all the mounting evidence.

And, in addition to picking cube for structure with pre-ordered increments,  ~your group adopts  subjective-objective containers as your embedded model of consciousness. Fortunately or not, it looks like adherents do so completely unconsciously of the adoption of such a model, despite its restrictive and limiting  coloring.

I pick tetrahedron for structure and north-south or attraction-repulsion [or attraction and attraction with one-half spin] for duality.  These picks generate a more compact, robust model of life-relevant portions of the terrain  than the cube-subjective-objective instance does.  In large part the improvement occurs because nature already is running largely on the tetrahedral/attractive-repulsive motif.

... some replies, way, way below search for [ref]

[ref] Lots of things transcend us all. Don't you think?

When you mention "origin of both consciousness and matter", I think it is somewhat helpful to provisionally table the ceaseless origins quests and try to openly embrace "eternal", even if you need to synthesize a new enzyme or learn a new term like "eternal nested structured coding"  to promote or allow the dissociation or transcendence.  ...Particularly, if you are going to continue to speak the "open-minded scientist" story.   It seems ~all our faith-based stories and assurances advertise "eternal" as a core feature even though at our level of nested structured~duality  we typically beg to differ.   The alternate trial theory is to accept "eternal" and then just see what that initial condition promotes. 

As for rational, a lot of our rationality is stoichiometry. Also, if ~you are actually eternal yet only chase the "origins" windmill, how rational will be  your answer? In my estimation, "consciousness and matter, afterlife, enlightenment(s) and altered states of consciousness" all reduce down to instances of nested structured~duality or nested structured coding, so it may be possible to walk before running.   How do you prove something about consciousness and altered states of consciousness when your only scientific model of consciousness is the two objective-subjective bin container?  

Also, if you consider yourself a rational Platonist, astute in mathematics, yet you have only started with xyz-cubic as your initial conditions, how rationally scientific  is that given the other initial starting conditions for structure left unexplored on the table?  Math math have some embedded incompleteness, but does that justify incompleteness in exploration?  (Not that I am one to cast such stones...)

As for your """that meaning has deeper non physical roots""" and """...knowledge by the conjunction of provability and truth...   .....(effective) provability never entails truth""",  I think you may be talking of downstream book-learning or speaking, already armed with a thick dictionary in hand.   

The idea that knowledge is true justified opinion is often called the standard theory of knowledge. I leads to a S4 theory, where knowing(p) entails p true, knowing(p) -> knowing(knowing(p)), etc.

[ref]  Yet, also, again,  in your preferred video game everyone is using the same "carbon-water-based" controller and when said intersections occur everyone is programmed to express/look-up the pre-assigned protein-foldings.  

Resorting to Google to find: "...empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning to state that something in question is true. These are the only ways we can assert that something is true,"  ...  these assessments are only carried out/meaningful/agreeable, still, with folks running the same carbon-water-based detector-logic systems, typically in only one type of logic motif. 

I'm not suggesting you and the ancient Greeks are ~wrong, 

My point is that theory given already by the introspecting universal machine is testable. (then I show that QM-without-collapse confirms it).

[ref]  So, what is this, now?  You need to drill down to S4 Yang-Mills level of organization in your  allegedly non-nested model, labeling something unspecified as an "introspecting utm" and then apply qualifiers to QM conditions to try to explain your self?

Okay, can you please stay right there and quickly sketch out your preferred conversational S4 QM model of consciousness and link it with expression and meaning? 

Not that I am well equipped for it,  but I have begun to notice that  the deeper QM storyline which apparently has abstract mathematical signals  prompting sounds like "with collapse", "without collapse", and, Heaven forbid I dredge up "observation", let's say it is all trying valiantly to point out something, but it's initial conditions are simply  too remote and too obscured and twisted so as to make or survive the translation.    Yet, if one looks in at the internal analog structural coding, certainly in the carbon-based structural coding where specific artifacts actually are synthesized, there is a "collapse" so to speak as the artifact is produced. Or since enzymes are likely involved, perhaps the synthesis proceeds but with less impression of "a collapse" or without an abrupt change -- no collapse -- more like a smooth transition from one to another resonance state.    Similarly, though, more vaporously, in structural coding of ordered water stacks (hydrogen bonding packets), which would be more like just structurally coded  transitions -- meaningful, yet,  "without collapse".   

My uneducated impression of the QM/Quantum Mind storyline is that some portion of the system is busy remembering replicating how a carbon atom should continue to be a carbon atom and so what additional structures need to be added into the quantum system  to also store the memory of Grammie's wood stove baked delicious chocolate cake? Perhaps you can address that feature in your description of your preferred model.

 

To me, you are just working at a different  and somewhat more dissociated level of organization in the overall NSD. 

I agree. Yet, if you are right, we should meet at the center of the bridge, when unravelling the layering and the nesting.

[ref] As far as I can tell the paradigm bridge is already open. All eight lanes, upper and lower decks, both ways.  Has been, for years.  Don't gang up in the middle. Just keep migrating. It's not just a matter of unravelling the layering and nesting. There is that disquieting issue of changing/adopting nested structured~duality   as a tenet  -- to catch on to we really do pick a-structure-and-a-duality (difference/distinction) and build outward from those initial  choices. The choices and the order they are made make  differences.  And that, hard to swallow, but  the flawed cube-subjective-objective instance is rather strongly related with our troublesome unintended environmental and economic social/cultural consequences.     The paradigm is important. Having a more accurate one is even more important.

Along my storyline, which explicitly recognizes the NSD,   

Arithmetic entails the NSD, trivially if we assume Mechanism, but also by simple math. keep in mind that before Gödel we taught that the natural finite things and laws were simple to analyse. After Gödel we have made the gignatic progress in understanding that we know almost nothing, and the full analysis/set-theories can only scrathc the surface of the arithmetical reality.

[ref] I'm not getting the sense that ~your paradigm explicitly recognizes nested structured~duality  as a tenet.  Moreso, would you say it is arithmetic?  Or, is it the gift of abstract mathematics?  Or is it mechanism?    

What are the tenets that you hold, if I may ask?  

In my storyline I consider mathematics, certainly mathematical physics,  arithmetic, mechanism, nested mechanisms and the various paradigms and trial theories all as various instances of NSD.

I notice that words are sort of secondary, trailing artifacts or influential echoes, even the number-words,  which ~appear first and always into existence via the hydrogen-bonding protein-folding  sequences.  So, I am saying that the 'provability never entailing truth', may arise moreso because of consensus and/or inter-generational agreements... at least in some or many cases.  Or, perhaps, ~truth is the NSD that the herd currently agrees upon and consensus, agreement, and sustenance are the "standards of knowledge".

I am not sure I understand. If you doubt that there is a solution to the equation x = 2 + 1, I am in trouble.

[ref] x = 3 as best I can tell.  Two apples  plus one apple, is, let me count that out on my fingers so I am more sure:, protein-folding one then another and then another as I silently mouth the words as I was taught to do... the answer is 'three'.   I don't doubt there is a solution and a solution to explaining and accounting for learning and recalling and building upon widgets like x =2+1.   Moreover, I rather think that how it is working is  in our atomic-molecular structural coding as in the structural coding in our 10^20 water molecules forming per second. 

I'll go further out on the limb and suggest it seems to me like ~you folks don't have a functional internal model of adaptive structural coding that ~you likely would reference by  the term "consciousness", yet, because I made some lucky guesses based on the omni-to-ing and fro-ing everywhere jitter-buggy expressions of R.Buckminster Fuller, I do happen to have a visualizable, communicable  anti-entropic structural coding analog tetrahedral model that supports internal representation and expression, albeit, in an admittedly approximate manner. 

In contrast, my impression or accusation is ~you or ~your group follow some ancient Greeks and/or, as I'd rather say, Descartes whereby,  in your instance of NSD ~you partition reality into, let's call them, physical and mental, or physical and abstract mathematical-logic segments.  So this buys options for comparing empirical and logical artifacts and when getting good agreements, assigning the mantle of "truth" (agreement), therein implementing the initial phase of the scientific method.

My impression is your group apparently externalizes  its mental-logical model into an agreed upon set and structure of abstract math symbols, procedures and rules. So, in this way, perhaps that collection is like an externalized, or semi-externalized  model of consciousness and logic(s).

Meanwhile,  me, you and your group, all the way back are running the 'actual' internal analog math model of "consciousness" -- what I am calling the "carbon-water-based" analog math model.  Not that I am certain or very convinced I am "right", but I have the impression working with and from an ~functional internal model of consciousness (even though approximate) is vastly different from  and more informative and relevant relying upon an abstracted, externalized model.

A related issue is noting that that Wigner's unreasonable effectiveness of abstract math in modeling physical reality has its actually unsurprising roots in the same internal analog math. 

So part of my point is to encourage folks in the dominant grouping to step forward with their own internal model, you know, as soon as you can get around to it.

A case in point, I suppose, is my term "nested structured~duality".

And I doubt you can formalize the NSD without assuming numbers. The notion of nesting do assume numbers I would say.

[ref] Certainly in their namings and referencing, ordering and sorting; in their descriptions.   _I_ probably cannot even formalize NSD with or without assuming numbers.  As I outlined  at the head of this post, I'm thinking nested structured~duality  (NSD) emerges rather directly from starting with an 'inner' magnetic tetrahedron (its states) and then nesting ~it -- its primary states -- in an enfolding (cubic) fields.     That gives participants of normal intelligence physical intuition on the underlying nested structured~duality (NSD) and on nested fields within nested fields.  Structure; duality; nesting.   I do have an N+1 rule in there to "predict" the number of primary states for each N-vertex structure.  

Is that "formalizing" and assuming numbers in the way you mean or expect?

I made it up a few years ago, along with some other terms so as to name the underlying, more unified general principle. Previously it was an ineffable feeling.  Someday it may enter a dictionary, or not...   So, protein-folding, then repeatability and consensus come first.  Later on, or sooner, the term  will be revised, replaced, dropped from use, forgotten.    The nested structured~duality it points at or references, though, will still persist. Is there empirical proof? Obviously, pervasive, ubiquitously.

I don't think that the notion of proof applies to the empirical reality. We have theories, and we progress when we refute those theories. If you formalize the NSD, I think you will build another universal machinery, then we can test it on the mind-body problem, by finding a device and some prediction. 

[ref] I could just be overly defensive in my cluelessness about "formalizing NSD" or "building another utm".   however, I'm also a bit skeptical about your assessment of progressing WITHIN a scientific paradigm when the actual task and challenge is to notice the halting anomalies that are already present in the dominant paradigm and migrating over to the  emerging scientific paradigm  that re-defines reality in a productive way and excludes the anomalies. 

If the utm storyline is what is called for and will do the trick, okay. I'd like to not impede that but may not be effective in doing it.  From my perspective, the analog math of the magnetic tetrahedron  "formalizes itself". (Or so I'd like to think.)  That is, repulse one vertex above a like-poled magnet    ( https://magnetictetrahedra.com/images/phpshow.php ) and the model expresses the pattern of damped anharmonic motion.  Perturb it and that wave-linear pattern "collapses".  'Push' at an upper vertex with a (repulsive)  handheld magnet end and *feel* the relation with position and momentum.

Still, have I assumed numbers yet?

Would formalizing NSD involve writing the physics equations for these patterns in abstract math expressions prior to acknowledging the patterns?

Do all logical systems and paradigms follow the NSD pattern?  My impression is, yes, rather than no.

To me, such patterns also seem  quite non-physical. They are just more easily visualized when dressed as we already or somewhat agree upon them being as how they exist, resonate, and flow within our local system.  I believe this notion is magnified for me because I have "switched" from the xyz-cubic format (which I think but do not know -- surmise, project) that pervades your Hamiltonians and nested Hamiltonians, to the nature-pervasive tetrahedral format. Or nitpicking: to the magnetic tetrahedral format.

[ref] Hello?  Do Hamiltonians have an xyz-cubic background or flavor?   Does anyone know the answer?  Is it taboo to answer?

I ~see how that story works in my model, but don't see such automatic integration, say, in your proposed partial brain substitutions or Turing replacement devices, and perhaps even in the quantum mechanical storylines.  For non-integrated processes, do you propose to just add look-up mechanisms to get associations, and not have them create themselves on the fly? 

All associations emerges from addition and multiplication. Very elementary arithmetic is Turing universal. It is well known by the experts in the filed since about the thirties of the 20th century, but alas, this is ignored in physics, metaphysics and theology (which for historical reasons do not interested the logicians).

Also, if judgements on sustainability decisions are coupled with the energy supply reaction, won't you need to perfectly replicate and add that mechanism also in all your substitutions?

I need only the Turing universality, completely provided by elementary arithmetic. Although the quantum is relatively easy to derive, the "hamiltonian" (if that exists) is less easy (and might be more geographical than physical), but we can already derive that if there is an hamiltonian, it has to described a reversible highly symmetrical physics, and I guess we will recover energy as an invariant for some symmetries. 

But we cannot add anthing to elementary arithmetic. Even if we find a correct subset of the laws of physics from arithmetic, mechanism would be refuted in case we have to add anything, like energy, to it. Indeed, it would mean that energy has some non Turing emulable property requires for consciousness being selected in such physics, instead of a physics merging from all computations seen from inside (in the Gödel's (+ Theaetetus) self-referential manner). More on this later, very plausibly.

Best regards,

Bruno

[rf] You can't add things, but can you "nest" them or is "nesting " requirement in your storyline, too?

(I was re-commenting old paragraph for reason of people having some more information). I am back in time now.

The nesting is due to the fact that relatively to a universal number, you get number emulating number emulating number, etc. You even circular sequence of emulation, self-modifying spiraling emulation, etc. Elementary arithmetic dovetails on all of them, but the 1p view get nested to up to spomethi,g which look like Plotinus One, Intellect, Soul, Intelligible-Matter and Sensible Matter.

Please do pardon my math and logic ignorance, if possible,  since I do not and perhaps cannot yet or even track on the Turing universality/number substitution storyline that you and other experts already appreciate. 

What I presently visualize as the thing you are  describing,  is like or akin to a solar powered programmable calculator or a battery-powered programmed pacemaker. It has ALL the features you describe as long as it has you or a person like you to push the buttons and interpret the signals. But  it cannot push the buttons or does it have, say, a mechanism for any motive so as to be able to do so, particularly as related to optimizing its own and its progenies' group sustenance and replication. 

In this way I understand or else grossly mis-understand that the Numbers/Turing Device/Mechanism is a description cast in number-words but that the ~actual addition and multiplication is first and always ~truly or more functional only in the  operating ~atomic/molecular patterns, as in our ~carbon-/water-based analog math nested mechanisms.

I knew you were (still) Aristotelian. My point is all this can bested by comparing the physics inside the "head of the universal number" with the empirical observation. then I can argue that the preliminary results favor the immaterialism of the platonic machine/number.

[ref]  Name-calling, huh?   Reference me as  R.B. Fuller fan, or else a Nested Platonic Aristotelianist since I suggest starting with analog math of magnetic tetrahedron and adding enfolding cube to generate more multiple states.   Are you still needing to have an abstract math equation or number in order to feel comfortable or knowledgable? Is analog math off limits for you or just unfamiliar and alien?

Again, within the xyz-cubic/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality  that I assume or project you of running, it may be impossible for you to "logically" describe or recognize the underlying synergy/resonance/replication pattern in any other descriptive or modeling way.  (So emphasized is the abstract math in that instance of NSD.)

The abstract math lingo is valuable, particularly within the xyz-cubic instance, but it, too, rides on the underlying (tetrahedral) carbon-/water-based analog math.

Or, so it seems to me. 

As you can guess we differ on this, although as a scientist I am neutral and only attempt to be enough clear so that we can test/refute, or confirm (in which case we don't  lean much).

[ref] Can you be clear on what, specifically, you differ on or in regard to?  Do you more favor structural coding/representations in the quantum mechanical layers, or in the neuron-synaptic arrangements?  Panpsychic? Or structural coding in ~spiritual layers of type??  Or, elsewhere/otherwise? 

I think you might improve your theory by taking the times to look at the (non natural) numbers like the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions. There are also interesting relationship between molecular orbitals and the additive theory of numbers (natural number partition). 

[ref] Thank you that advice. I've look or scanned a few times before.  Much bounces off.  Re: the complex numbers, that seemed like a loud overt instance of  structured~duality popping out in odd ways as evidence of the underlying but as yet unacknowledged nested structured~duality.   

Also, if Rieman Hypothesis is true, it is possible that the prime numbers already mimic a quantum computer, leading to shortcut between number theory and physics (but they miss all the modes of consciousness, and could lead to a form of arithmeticalism which would be as incomplete as physicalism).

[ref] Why do you think incompleteness continues to turn up?

I sometimes think of prime numbers as symbols or markers of special knots in nested fields within nested fields, or of special resonant frequencies.   

Thanks again for the quests and comments.  Pardon the way too long post. 

Best regards and Happy New Year!,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm. 

https:/magnetictetrahedra.com

[Alex Hankey]

RE: 

IF your ~numbers/Turing swap-in device is going to report results and share findings with its replicated progeny, I am pretty sure you will need the carbon-water-based equipment to protein-fold the noises that can later be agreed upon with replicated progeny. ... I so wish this to be true. It would mean that carbon-water-based equipment is derivable from elementary arithmetic. To be clear, this is an open problem, and at first sight, "water" seems more "accidental", but that is very hard to say.

ME: But our carbon-water-based equipment operates at criticality, supported by self-organized criticality, meaning that the information system is NOT derivable from elementary arithmetic. You cannot apply arithmetical operations at physical instabilities. 

--

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India 
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Dec 2017, at 05:27, Alex Hankey wrote:

RE: 

IF your ~numbers/Turing swap-in device is going to report results and share findings with its replicated progeny, I am pretty sure you will need the carbon-water-based equipment to protein-fold the noises that can later be agreed upon with replicated progeny. ... I so wish this to be true. It would mean that carbon-water-based equipment is derivable from elementary arithmetic. To be clear, this is an open problem, and at first sight, "water" seems more "accidental", but that is very hard to say.

ME: But our carbon-water-based equipment operates at criticality, supported by self-organized criticality, meaning that the information system is NOT derivable from elementary arithmetic.

Why? You confuse total computable with partial computable. the price of universality is that the machines is only partially computable. And, indeed, its partialness is due to its self-reference abilities, which makes the universal machine living all the time near critical conditions. The meaning is not derivable, but that the machines already known.

You cannot apply arithmetical operations at physical instabilities. 

Yes, but arithmetical operation leads to many thing not predictable by arithmetical operations. Somehow, the border of the Mandelbrot set illustrates this

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4JSrIqrwTM).

I do agree with the importance of criticallity, but it is not an argument against the indexical mechanism I am studying. I would say on the contrary, chaos plays some role at the heart of the universal numbers. Free-will is genuine self-indeterminacy.

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAKGpHcgvcEjFN2r0GB8VJN0epPxKZME0SEzY5U-KhoCZ%3DoXauQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

I am wondering if mathematicians may have a way of imagining or approximating integrated synthesis and metabolism as "total computability". Might that be a possibility? From an engineering perspective, the on-going biochemical stochiometry appears to me to be the more robust, complete, and primary analog math.   But for those fluent in the abstract math language, the abstract math representations apparently have and/or can be synthesized themselves in  various ways to appear to be very expressive.

And perhaps that is part of our communications difficulty or squabble where you may be saying, the utm or some utm model is or can be fiddled with  enough so it models all ~physical models.  I suppose I can or do sort of agree since in the storyline I advocate where reality (both ~physical and ~mental artifacts) is nested structured~duality, all trial theories and expressions (including those cast in mathematical physics) are all just different instances of nested structured~duality.  

In my case, I favor the "carbon-water-based" instance that we are all running, maybe generalizing somewhat wider via the sp^3 hybridized (mostly tetrahedral) pattern-reference reflecting in the magnetic tetrahedron ~analog math. This ~one pattern knits together for nested structural coding in water clusters and carbon molecule clusters --- genetic, epi-genetic, metabolic, respirational structural coding and expressions.  

~Perhaps, or possibly there are other regenerative structural coding patterns and/or elemental clusters, beyond those with carbon, silicon and arsenic and the ONHPS.. elements.  

A question I have, though, is if the abstract math utm is so ~universal or effective, why has it not already identified and clearly emphasized the underlying, more unified ~magnetic tetrahedral patterns?

Or, has it, in the form  of forging the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding pattern?

The abstract math approximations,  apparently are convincing or persuasive, and valuable representations for some or many  people, although the same people also all do run the underlying ~analog tetrahedral bio-math.  That gives (to me)  some evidence of  fundamental "nesting". 

Is there a list, evidence, though, of specific artifacts and instances that exist, manifest and self-replicate directly, only from the numbers and number operations?

My guess might be one frequency of ~vibration combining with another so as to create some new ~product.  And, on and on, into nested  fields within nested fields containing different classes of ~standing waves...  But that still looks to me like a number (of something, a wave) adding to another number (of a different wave) to make another pattern which is not much different from one apple plus one apple equals two apples.

Where you say, """The meaning is not derivable, but that the machines already known.""",    a hunch I have is that "actual meaning", is wildly integrated and front-loaded into our "synthesis or sustenance reactions", like in our respiration reaction.   Thus, what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger, as the saying goes, and downstream ~we are always making up protein-folding words and stories which we come to bandy about as "meanings" and explanations -- which they sort of are -- but not in the primary energy collection/conservation sense.  So, yeah, the meaning is not derivable because it is already sorted in very basic other terms in the respiration reaction and we only get options for words and explanations in the downstream hydrogen-bonding protein-folding. 

I suspect that ~you ad hocly insert  math signals and/or the descriptions into ~your utm expressions/model to indicate for (1) meaning is not derivable,  and (2) that the machines already known. 

But ~if you are not, that is or would be a very intriguing and perhaps informative ~trick on the abstract math's symbolic representation part.   

I can see how _you_ would know it, because you could know it/feel it, in the same way I do and just described. The thing I question or don't see though,  is if mathematicians carry their internal dialog as "two apples plus two apples", but subconsciously run the streamlined version, excluding the counted artifacts.

Thoughts?

Best regards,

Ralph

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAKGpHcgvcEjFN2r0GB8VJN0epPxKZME0SEzY5U-KhoCZ%3DoXauQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/B917F93A-B94D-4FC0-888E-83E60AFC94B4%40ulb.ac.be.

[Paul Werbos]

Hi, Ralph!

I apologize for delay in replying. Have been off on other things, some still overdue.

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the storyline I am advocating, rather than split or dissociate  abstract math off into the imagined separate xyz-cubic partition, the analog math I start with unfolds with the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron: n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.This provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states differing  in increments of one-half spin and, concurrently, a moderately accurate yet approximate  "look and feel" model of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns  pervasive thoughout life, ourselves and a very large fraction of our surroundings. 

Analog math is certainly essential to understanding the basics of the world we live in, at all levels. Purist, unbalanced black and white digital thinking has led to many forms of blinder and insanity.

But what can one do with macroscopic rod magnets? Maxwell's laws and Newtonian mechanics mostly do a good job of characterizing what we can do with such systems, when we do not inject new capabilities like quantum entanglement which require new technologies/designs. For energy generation... I have worked out the case for continuous systems governed by a large class of partial differential equations (PDE), but not done much for the practical classical case, because it did not look promising.

 

"Nesting" these primary five states within an enfolding (cubic) structure generates an additional ten recognizable ~secondary states, illuminating the underlying general principle of "nested structured~duality" and that nested structure generate multiple states; pointing toward nested fields within nested fields being fundamental.  

I don't have a formal interpretation of what "nesting" means. 

It sounds a bit like the usual great chain of approximation, which can be built up from the most basic physics to successive levels of approximation addressing emergent phenomena at every greater levels of time and space. And which entails both modeling and design of subsystems and systems. 

 

In my continued fiddling with particularly the n2s2 state/pattern I developed a way to visualize that as we live and breathe, the similarly patterned  ~10^20 water molecules  per second forming in our aerobic respiration can form a ~6^n structurally coded internal analog math representation of our surroundings.  So, I have become enamoured with the s^3 hybridized bonding "carbon-water-based" analog math that we are ALL running. 

In this storyline, structural coding in the ordered water ~always has some sustenance-related energy-value meaning, and words, including the numbers-words  emerge downstream as hydrogen-bonding packets unfurl in sequenced patterns of protein-foldings (expressions). 

OK, that's a level more basic than the macroscopic magnets. Quantum mechanics certainly is important in describing molecules. Is this kind of chemistry important to the way in which "soul" perturbs our ordinary mundane human bodies?

I have wondered about that at times. I even mentioned such things in a paper published in Nanobiology long long ago. But in truth, we don't know. We do know that our mundane bodies and DNA are the result of nearly a billion years of effective natural selection, and that we do not know the underlying principles of "soul"-body interaction well enough yet to build similar capabilities into the systems we build. That may be just as well, but I was intrigued last week by the question of what we might learn even from such humble looking phenomena as poltergeist stuff.

 

In this way, I suppose, I have a visualizable model of the nested structural coding, roughly, in a tetrahedral motif, including our genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, respirational, etc., structural coding that forms ~naturally, represents ourselves and our surroundings, and give some account for meaning, expression and perhaps creativity. Additionally, due to the addition of new vocabulary, the term "consciousness" can be relegated t the bin holding "phlogiston" if one desires.  That is, fifty-nine flavors and types of consciousness are not defined in terms of "consciousness" but emerge as structural coding and  nested structural coding, you know, more accurately reflecting  within the nested fields within nested fields. 

Yes, they are all patterns at some level of the "great chain of approximation," with one arguable exception (that being the possibility that the underlying laws of physics MIGHT be interpretable as something LIKE an instance of neural network mathematics). 

 

So, we seem to have a difference in our perspectives or in our schools of thought....  Er, but even when I admit and write that I still notice that both groups are  still using the  same "carbon-water-based" primary systems to conceptualize, scribble out and advocate their various instances of nested structured~duality.   Moreover, I admit I don't get informed of "sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding" (and essentially most everything else) except due to the developments within the "numerical/xyz-cubic" school of thought.   So, what we have is a difference in expression, or as I like to say, a difference in instances of nested structured~duality.  

Yes, the paradox of the knower not knowing himself is a pervasive issue in human life in all cultures... so far.

 

You folks pick cube for structure, or for initial/primary structure, maybe with increments already named and presorted or ordered along a line, then you add duality to get ~negative numbers and add additional directions to get the cubic (already nested) structured~duality.   Then, as someone wrote, you investigate the nested levels of organization, albeit in a somewhat un-sub-conscious way via first, second and third derivatives, etc.,  but it seems to uneducated folks like me that you don't and never do admit to working with (and thus assuming: holding the tenet of) a fundamentally ~nested system.  Even when ~you collapse space and time into space-time, ~you appear to ignore or deny the fundamental inner nested structured~duality.  

Oops. Are you referring to me or to others in this discussion? But it is true that I don't see much new or interesting in the "Nesting" concept which has been discussed here, beyond the various chains of approximation and subsystem and chunking I take for granted after many years of working with them. I myself haven't spent time trying to developed reduced arithmetic descriptions of molecular chemistry, or of QED in general; it is enough of a challenge to develop clear disentanglement of key concepts and predictors and experiments taking full advantage of modern analog mathematics like multivariate calculus. 

Of course, birds have a very different concept of nesting.

Best of luck,

  Paul

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Ralph,

I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. 

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

On Jan 1, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I am wondering if mathematicians may have a way of imagining or approximating integrated synthesis and metabolism as "total computability”. 

Mechanism entails that the physical reality, and the psychological (and theological) reality are NOT computable. Mechanism is at the antipode of the idea that the physical universe is a computable object. Actually, the physical universe might still be to much computable to make sense of Mechanism. 

Note that the set of total computable functions/programs is itself a non computable set. The price of universal computability is that the total computable is mixed in a highly non computable way with the partial computable. This makes the universal machine not entirely predictable or controllable. 

I might send a post on this some day, as it is very important.

Might that be a possibility? From an engineering perspective, the on-going biochemical stochiometry appears to me to be the more robust, complete, and primary analog math.   But for those fluent in the abstract math language, the abstract math representations apparently have and/or can be synthesized themselves in  various ways to appear to be very expressive.

And perhaps that is part of our communications difficulty or squabble where you may be saying, the utm or some utm model is or can be fiddled with  enough so it models all ~physical models.

It is the contrary. Mechanism saves both consciousness and matter from any reductive theory. It makes them into mathematical reality, but only into mathematical reality that we already know are incomplete-able by any mathematical theories. It is of the upmost importance to distinguish a mathematical theory from a mathematical reality, especially when we study the mathematics of mathematical theories (metamathematics, mathematical logic). 

  I suppose I can or do sort of agree since in the storyline I advocate where reality (both ~physical and ~mental artifacts) is nested structured~duality, all trial theories and expressions (including those cast in mathematical physics) are all just different instances of nested structured~duality.  

I can only encourage you to study first order logic, and to try to make a first-order logical theory of the nested-structured-duality. Or you can study computationalism (and my papers), and derive that structure from arithmetic, which has to be the case if both Mechanism and your approach are correct. But you can also forget this, and let other people do that work. The fact is this: if digital mechanism, or computationalism is true, the only things which can be said to exists are the numbers (or Turing equivalent), and their laws of + and *.

In my case, I favor the "carbon-water-based" instance that we are all running, maybe generalizing somewhat wider via the sp^3 hybridized (mostly tetrahedral) pattern-reference reflecting in the magnetic tetrahedron ~analog math. This ~one pattern knits together for nested structural coding in water clusters and carbon molecule clusters --- genetic, epi-genetic, metabolic, respirational structural coding and expressions.  

I am working at a more fundamental level, and I do not assume carbon, time, space, electrons, etc. Those are among the things that I want to explain, and without using an brain-mind identity thesis which is inconsistent with mechanism. 

~Perhaps, or possibly there are other regenerative structural coding patterns and/or elemental clusters, beyond those with carbon, silicon and arsenic and the ONHPS.. elements.  

Yes indeed. Any Turing universal device will do. I use numbers because we are taught them in school, but I could use the combinators, the Fortran programs, lambda calculus, … whatever. The theology and the physics are the same. 

A question I have, though, is if the abstract math utm is so ~universal or effective, why has it not already identified and clearly emphasized the underlying, more unified ~magnetic tetrahedral patterns?

Because computationalism is in its infancy, and we got only the quantum formalism, but not yet any hamiltonian, except that there are already clues that it has to be reversible and allows some complex symmetries to exist. We have not yet “space”! Nor physical time (but we have the psychological duration though).

Or, has it, in the form  of forging the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding pattern?

You can easily represent this in arithmetic, but to get the physics with both quanta and qualia, you need to derive everything from what a number can prove, guess, know, observe when looking inward.

The abstract math approximations,  apparently are convincing or persuasive, and valuable representations for some or many  people, although the same people also all do run the underlying ~analog tetrahedral bio-math.  That gives (to me)  some evidence of  fundamental "nesting”. 

That is applied math to some reality we assume, but that cannot work with computationalism. You need to derive the whole physical “hallucination” from the number theology. The rest will be historico-geopgraphical.

Is there a list, evidence, though, of specific artifacts and instances that exist, manifest and self-replicate directly, only from the numbers and number operations?

Yes. The basic idea is in applying a duplicator to itself: if Dx => xx, then DA => AA, DB => BB, and … DD => DD! This gives a non halting program, but then using some notions of quoting, we can get version of this which stops: like with D’X’ = “X’X’’, so D’D’ = ‘D’D’’. That is the essence of self-reproduction, and I have used it to model self-regeneration and embryogenesis, and … dreams. (See my paper “Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming Machine”. The whole theology of number/machine is obtained through variant of this principle. See my long French text for precise illustrations made in the programming language LISP. In term of number, it is as much easy, but is much longer to explain.

My guess might be one frequency of ~vibration combining with another so as to create some new ~product.  

This assumes vibrations, space, high math, etc. It is interesting, but I can use this without deriving wha it assumes from the number’s phenomenologies.

And, on and on, into nested  fields within nested fields containing different classes of ~standing waves...  But that still looks to me like a number (of something, a wave) adding to another number (of a different wave) to make another pattern which is not much different from one apple plus one apple equals two apples.

Where you say, """The meaning is not derivable, but that the machines already known.""",    a hunch I have is that "actual meaning", is wildly integrated and front-loaded into our "synthesis or sustenance reactions", like in our respiration reaction. 

It is much deeper that this, and works for all universal numbers knowing that they are universal, and it proceeds from pure logical reason. Just keep this in mind, and I could explain later, if I find someway to sum up a centanary of mathematical logics (something quite unknown by most scientists, except logicians of course).

 Thus, what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger, as the saying goes, and downstream ~we are always making up protein-folding words and stories which we come to bandy about as "meanings" and explanations -- which they sort of are -- but not in the primary energy collection/conservation sense.  

But there is no primary energy. There is as art of “looking primary matter”, but it emerges from the fact that each universal machine belongs to an infinity of computations, and they cannot know which one. That will entail qualitative non-cloning of matter theorem, indeterminacy, non-locality, but all this is phenomenological: it belongs to the dream of numbers, so to speak.

So, yeah, the meaning is not derivable because it is already sorted in very basic other terms in the respiration reaction and we only get options for words and explanations in the downstream hydrogen-bonding protein-folding. 

I suspect that ~you ad hocly insert  math signals and/or the descriptions into ~your utm expressions/model to indicate for (1) meaning is not derivable,  and (2) that the machines already known. 

All modes of knowledge becomes variants of Gödel’s provability predicate, and the reason why the self-meaning is not derivable is related to limitation theorem, like Gödel’s unprovability of consistency, or Tarski non-definabilty of truth (and their combinations). 

But ~if you are not, that is or would be a very intriguing and perhaps informative ~trick on the abstract math's symbolic representation part.   

I can see how _you_ would know it, because you could know it/feel it, in the same way I do and just described. The thing I question or don't see though,  is if mathematicians carry their internal dialog as "two apples plus two apples", but subconsciously run the streamlined version, excluding the counted artifacts.

I have lost my faith in a physical *primary* reality before deciding to study mathematics, because I realize that the crazy extraordinary achievement of bacteria and cells well already done by the numbers relatively to themselves and universal numbers. I have never seen evidences that there are primary real counted artifacts. But my work just show that this can be tested, and with QM’s confirmation of Mechanism, I would say that we did not found evidences for such artifacts. 

I think we are not addressing the same question, or you assume some non-computationalism. 

My goal is to figure out what is matter, without denying consciousness. Eventually, that leads, in the frame of mechanism, to the abandon of Aristotle idea that there is an ontologically existing universe. To put it shortly, it is only a dream made by infinitely many numbers.

Best regards,

Bruno

[Ralph Frost]

Thanks for your reply and comments, and Happy New Year. Paul.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Ralph!

I apologize for delay in replying. Have been off on other things, some still overdue.

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the storyline I am advocating, rather than split or dissociate  abstract math off into the imagined separate xyz-cubic partition, the analog math I start with unfolds with the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron: n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.This provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states differing  in increments of one-half spin and, concurrently, a moderately accurate yet approximate  "look and feel" model of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns  pervasive thoughout life, ourselves and a very large fraction of our surroundings. 

Analog math is certainly essential to understanding the basics of the world we live in, at all levels. Purist, unbalanced black and white digital thinking has led to many forms of blinder and insanity.

But what can one do with macroscopic rod magnets?

]rf] As shown above, when combined with tetrahedral structure, provide physical intuition on states and variable mass-density, plus some *feel* for sp^3 hybridized or Debye electronegativity patterns.    ...Handy, particularly for students who are math- or visually challenged, or those who cannot afford the time and effort to otherwise acquire physical intuition via the established  abstract math prerequisites.

   

Maxwell's laws and Newtonian mechanics mostly do a good job of characterizing what we can do with such systems, when we do not inject new capabilities like quantum entanglement which require new technologies/designs. For energy generation... I have worked out the case for continuous systems governed by a large class of partial differential equations (PDE), but not done much for the practical classical case, because it did not look promising.

[rf] My hunch is the breakthroughs or more efficient designs emerge in nested" or what you might consider "hierarchical" designs that function at natural resonances.  Structure them in certain ways; set them in the environment and ~let them resonate. 

 

"Nesting" these primary five states within an enfolding (cubic) structure generates an additional ten recognizable ~secondary states, illuminating the underlying general principle of "nested structured~duality" and that nested structure generate multiple states; pointing toward nested fields within nested fields being fundamental.  

I don't have a formal interpretation of what "nesting" means. 

[rf] One inside another; hierarchical; like what is present in subatomic particles/fields within atomic within molecular....      I am ~saying structure within structure is fundamental.   I suspect the dominant scientific model sees things differently, flatter, more like the assumed "empty space", so "nested structure" is unfamiliar even though, you know,  sub-atomic within atomic within molecular within planetary within galactic within neubulii -- etc..  Multi-dimensionalism enabling multi-dimensional transport, etc..

  

It sounds a bit like the usual great chain of approximation, which can be built up from the most basic physics to successive levels of approximation addressing emergent phenomena at every greater levels of time and space. And which entails both modeling and design of subsystems and systems. 

[rf] Yet, notice you begin with the tenets of space and time and somehow  muddle on about "levels of space and time",  while saying you don't track on "nesting".   Also you, yourself, advocate for some type of "field" as in mqed.   

I suppose it would be taboo for me to suggest you consider that space and time are the wild-eyed, unfounded assumptions  or approximations.  Please try it though.      My impression is that intuitively, one can peer within space-time and xQED's and observe nested structured~duality  within 'both'. 

 

In my continued fiddling with particularly the n2s2 state/pattern I developed a way to visualize that as we live and breathe, the similarly patterned  ~10^20 water molecules  per second forming in our aerobic respiration can form a ~6^n structurally coded internal analog math representation of our surroundings.  So, I have become enamoured with the s^3 hybridized bonding "carbon-water-based" analog math that we are ALL running. 

In this storyline, structural coding in the ordered water ~always has some sustenance-related energy-value meaning, and words, including the numbers-words  emerge downstream as hydrogen-bonding packets unfurl in sequenced patterns of protein-foldings (expressions). 

OK, that's a level more basic than the macroscopic magnets. Quantum mechanics certainly is important in describing molecules. Is this kind of chemistry important to the way in which "soul" perturbs our ordinary mundane human bodies?

[rf]  I think I read once that magnets only have a quantum mechanical ~description (no classical physics account) so fiddling with magnetic tetrahedra is or is like fiddling with ~quantum mechanical tetrahedra.  So, I am really playing around with a multiple state non-classical simple machine.   Playing with two magnets shows there is like  ~one way to get attraction but two ways to get repulsion. And ~feeling this pattern more shows that repulsion is attraction with one-half spin -- or vise-versa. So the pattern is observable right there in the macro-physical.

I have wondered about that at times. I even mentioned such things in a paper published in Nanobiology long long ago. But in truth, we don't know. We do know that our mundane bodies and DNA are the result of nearly a billion years of effective natural selection, and that we do not know the underlying principles of "soul"-body interaction well enough yet to build similar capabilities into the systems we build. That may be just as well, but I was intrigued last week by the question of what we might learn even from such humble looking phenomena as poltergeist stuff.

[rf]  I suppose that is one direction for scientific research.  Good luck with that.   I still think there are returns just with picking a different structure and a different ~duality and working outward from those new intial conditions; then considering patterns between the two starting points.  Where you mention DNA and natural selection you are sort of glossing over a lot of nested structural coding.

 

In this way, I suppose, I have a visualizable model of the nested structural coding, roughly, in a tetrahedral motif, including our genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, respirational, etc., structural coding that forms ~naturally, represents ourselves and our surroundings, and give some account for meaning, expression and perhaps creativity. Additionally, due to the addition of new vocabulary, the term "consciousness" can be relegated t the bin holding "phlogiston" if one desires.  That is, fifty-nine flavors and types of consciousness are not defined in terms of "consciousness" but emerge as structural coding and  nested structural coding, you know, more accurately reflecting  within the nested fields within nested fields. 

Yes, they are all patterns at some level of the "great chain of approximation," with one arguable exception (that being the possibility that the underlying laws of physics MIGHT be interpretable as something LIKE an instance of neural network mathematics). 

[rf] Maybe so. But the laws of physics in their initial modern approximation also rest on the assumed tenets of space and time.  Other instances of nested structured~duality   are available.

 

So, we seem to have a difference in our perspectives or in our schools of thought....  Er, but even when I admit and write that I still notice that both groups are  still using the  same "carbon-water-based" primary systems to conceptualize, scribble out and advocate their various instances of nested structured~duality.   Moreover, I admit I don't get informed of "sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding" (and essentially most everything else) except due to the developments within the "numerical/xyz-cubic" school of thought.   So, what we have is a difference in expression, or as I like to say, a difference in instances of nested structured~duality.  

Yes, the paradox of the knower not knowing himself is a pervasive issue in human life in all cultures... so far.

[rf] Well-spoken. 

 

You folks pick cube for structure, or for initial/primary structure, maybe with increments already named and presorted or ordered along a line, then you add duality to get ~negative numbers and add additional directions to get the cubic (already nested) structured~duality.   Then, as someone wrote, you investigate the nested levels of organization, albeit in a somewhat un-sub-conscious way via first, second and third derivatives, etc.,  but it seems to uneducated folks like me that you don't and never do admit to working with (and thus assuming: holding the tenet of) a fundamentally ~nested system.  Even when ~you collapse space and time into space-time, ~you appear to ignore or deny the fundamental inner nested structured~duality.  

Oops. Are you referring to me or to others in this discussion? But it is true that I don't see much new or interesting in the "Nesting" concept which has been discussed here, beyond the various chains of approximation and subsystem and chunking I take for granted after many years of working with them. I myself haven't spent time trying to developed reduced arithmetic descriptions of molecular chemistry, or of QED in general; it is enough of a challenge to develop clear disentanglement of key concepts and predictors and experiments taking full advantage of modern analog mathematics like multivariate calculus. 

Of course, birds have a very different concept of nesting.

Best of luck,

  Paul

[rf] You DO have your own instances of nested structured~duality  and they are founded on the dominant tenets, right?

Do you ever consider beginning with revised tenets and/or a different structure?

Best regards,

Ralph

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgfhq%2B6U1%3DUmYuXWo9ef4k3eeZgUNH8sg7LGu9HCPU%3DLeA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and clarifications. I hear the words coming out of your mouth. However, while  I, too, think there are other different scientific paradigms accounting for the so-called ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts, better than is done in the dominant ~physical scientific paradigm, I  do not or cannot understand the instance of nested structured~duality that you view and put together or as you express it so far.

Some comments below.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. 

[rf] First, I don't think you were 'neutral' when studying ameobas, but you changed after having one or more insights and after experiencing and mastering the abstract math and mathematical logic lingo.  Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics. It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math.  I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Second, I am assuming a nested structured~duality.  Not so much just a physical reality 'out there'. Yes, I can sling up an instance that has   a physical reality “out there”, but  I'm more of the old time religion where I believe in the elements and in solar-driven photosynthesis generating food packets and oxygen, some of which aerobic organisms ingest and digest and respire, in concert with our microbial partners.  So, a lot of nested structural coding in nested fields within nested fields.

Maybe it is like your 'mechanism'. I can't tell what you mean by 'mechanism' so I likely cannot say more than I think there are some similarities. 

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

[rf] My impression is that if you swap out my amagadala for a printer circuit board, maybe  there'd be improvements in my temperament, but probably ~I'd be different. Not the same self.   Plus there's some questions about hormonal secretions.    

MY problem with boosting the abstract math prerequisites is the duration and failure rates are already excessive, just on the ~physical side of things.  That's ~why I favor analog math, since the physical intuition can develop via the tactile channel, you know, as ~God intended. 

I guess we'll need to see how your test results pan out, though.  Any estimate on a schedule?

On Jan 1, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I am wondering if mathematicians may have a way of imagining or approximating integrated synthesis and metabolism as "total computability”. 

Mechanism entails that the physical reality, and the psychological (and theological) reality are NOT computable. Mechanism is at the antipode of the idea that the physical universe is a computable object. Actually, the physical universe might still be to much computable to make sense of Mechanism. 

Note that the set of total computable functions/programs is itself a non computable set. The price of universal computability is that the total computable is mixed in a highly non computable way with the partial computable. This makes the universal machine not entirely predictable or controllable. 

I might send a post on this some day, as it is very important.

[rf] Computability and non-computability seem to me to be weaker shadow functions inherent within synthesis, enzymatic transforms and resonance. One can probably tell such a math-words story, but by itself or cast in silicon or magnets and wire, it still will not reproduce. 

Might that be a possibility? From an engineering perspective, the on-going biochemical stochiometry appears to me to be the more robust, complete, and primary analog math.   But for those fluent in the abstract math language, the abstract math representations apparently have and/or can be synthesized themselves in  various ways to appear to be very expressive.

And perhaps that is part of our communications difficulty or squabble where you may be saying, the utm or some utm model is or can be fiddled with  enough so it models all ~physical models.

It is the contrary. Mechanism saves both consciousness and matter from any reductive theory. It makes them into mathematical reality, but only into mathematical reality that we already know are incomplete-able by any mathematical theories. It is of the upmost importance to distinguish a mathematical theory from a mathematical reality, especially when we study the mathematics of mathematical theories (metamathematics, mathematical logic). 

[rf] So, Question:  when I scribble out that the 10^20 water molecules forming in respiration, due to their structured duality, form a 6^n internal analog math whose structural coding provides representations of surroundings, is that a mathematical reality or a mathematical theory, or just teleosemantics? 

  I suppose I can or do sort of agree since in the storyline I advocate where reality (both ~physical and ~mental artifacts) is nested structured~duality, all trial theories and expressions (including those cast in mathematical physics) are all just different instances of nested structured~duality.  

I can only encourage you to study first order logic, and to try to make a first-order logical theory of the nested-structured-duality. Or you can study computationalism (and my papers), and derive that structure from arithmetic, which has to be the case if both Mechanism and your approach are correct. But you can also forget this, and let other people do that work. The fact is this: if digital mechanism, or computationalism is true, the only things which can be said to exists are the numbers (or Turing equivalent), and their laws of + and *.

[rf] ...Within the bubble of abstract mathematics stories. Sounds like we need to test digital mechanism?

In my case, I favor the "carbon-water-based" instance that we are all running, maybe generalizing somewhat wider via the sp^3 hybridized (mostly tetrahedral) pattern-reference reflecting in the magnetic tetrahedron ~analog math. This ~one pattern knits together for nested structural coding in water clusters and carbon molecule clusters --- genetic, epi-genetic, metabolic, respirational structural coding and expressions.  

I am working at a more fundamental level, and I do not assume carbon, time, space, electrons, etc. Those are among the things that I want to explain, and without using an brain-mind identity thesis which is inconsistent with mechanism. 

[rf] I hear you talking, but you sound exceedingly dissociated or in denial.  You don't assume carbon in your trial theory, but you eat your Wheaties and digest your carbon-based foodstuffs and respire carbon dioxide. Your "carbon-water-based" self (part of which you intend to swap out for digital mechanism) is still providing energy and material in support of your thinking and memory and expression.   If you think not, then put it to the test and shut off your oxygen supply to see what occurs.  (While being careful.)

~Perhaps, or possibly there are other regenerative structural coding patterns and/or elemental clusters, beyond those with carbon, silicon and arsenic and the ONHPS.. elements.  

Yes indeed. Any Turing universal device will do. I use numbers because we are taught them in school, but I could use the combinators, the Fortran programs, lambda calculus, … whatever. The theology and the physics are the same. 

A question I have, though, is if the abstract math utm is so ~universal or effective, why has it not already identified and clearly emphasized the underlying, more unified ~magnetic tetrahedral patterns?

Because computationalism is in its infancy, and we got only the quantum formalism, but not yet any hamiltonian, except that there are already clues that it has to be reversible and allows some complex symmetries to exist. We have not yet “space”! Nor physical time (but we have the psychological duration though).

Or, has it, in the form  of forging the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding pattern?

You can easily represent this in arithmetic, but to get the physics with both quanta and qualia, you need to derive everything from what a number can prove, guess, know, observe when looking inward.

The abstract math approximations,  apparently are convincing or persuasive, and valuable representations for some or many  people, although the same people also all do run the underlying ~analog tetrahedral bio-math.  That gives (to me)  some evidence of  fundamental "nesting”. 

That is applied math to some reality we assume, but that cannot work with computationalism. You need to derive the whole physical “hallucination” from the number theology. The rest will be historico-geopgraphical.

[rf] That approach is one instance of nested structured~duality.  When will you have answers along this instance?

 

Is there a list, evidence, though, of specific artifacts and instances that exist, manifest and self-replicate directly, only from the numbers and number operations?

Yes. The basic idea is in applying a duplicator to itself: if Dx => xx, then DA => AA, DB => BB, and … DD => DD! This gives a non halting program, but then using some notions of quoting, we can get version of this which stops: like with D’X’ = “X’X’’, so D’D’ = ‘D’D’’. That is the essence of self-reproduction, and I have used it to model self-regeneration and embryogenesis, and … dreams. (See my paper “Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming Machine”. The whole theology of number/machine is obtained through variant of this principle. See my long French text for precise illustrations made in the programming language LISP. In term of number, it is as much easy, but is much longer to explain.

[rf]  It seems to me that your duplicator is missing the reservoirs of extra characters that must have as it accesses and extra x when doing the duplicating.

My guess might be one frequency of ~vibration combining with another so as to create some new ~product.  

This assumes vibrations, space, high math, etc. It is interesting, but I can use this without deriving wha it assumes from the number’s phenomenologies.

[rf] You may be the one assuming 'space'.

And, on and on, into nested  fields within nested fields containing different classes of ~standing waves...  But that still looks to me like a number (of something, a wave) adding to another number (of a different wave) to make another pattern which is not much different from one apple plus one apple equals two apples.

Where you say, """The meaning is not derivable, but that the machines already known.""",    a hunch I have is that "actual meaning", is wildly integrated and front-loaded into our "synthesis or sustenance reactions", like in our respiration reaction. 

It is much deeper that this, and works for all universal numbers knowing that they are universal, and it proceeds from pure logical reason. Just keep this in mind, and I could explain later, if I find someway to sum up a centanary of mathematical logics (something quite unknown by most scientists, except logicians of course).

[rf] Pick a structure. Then pick one or more dualities or differences, Then work out=ward to the limits of your initial conditions. 

 Thus, what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger, as the saying goes, and downstream ~we are always making up protein-folding words and stories which we come to bandy about as "meanings" and explanations -- which they sort of are -- but not in the primary energy collection/conservation sense.  

But there is no primary energy. There is as art of “looking primary matter”, but it emerges from the fact that each universal machine belongs to an infinity of computations, and they cannot know which one. That will entail qualitative non-cloning of matter theorem, indeterminacy, non-locality, but all this is phenomenological: it belongs to the dream of numbers, so to speak.

[rf] You really do need to carefully experiment with shutting off your oxygen supply. 

So, yeah, the meaning is not derivable because it is already sorted in very basic other terms in the respiration reaction and we only get options for words and explanations in the downstream hydrogen-bonding protein-folding. 

I suspect that ~you ad hocly insert  math signals and/or the descriptions into ~your utm expressions/model to indicate for (1) meaning is not derivable,  and (2) that the machines already known. 

All modes of knowledge becomes variants of Gödel’s provability predicate, and the reason why the self-meaning is not derivable is related to limitation theorem, like Gödel’s unprovability of consistency, or Tarski non-definabilty of truth (and their combinations). 

[rf] What about the  (2) that the machines already known?

But ~if you are not, that is or would be a very intriguing and perhaps informative ~trick on the abstract math's symbolic representation part.   

I can see how _you_ would know it, because you could know it/feel it, in the same way I do and just described. The thing I question or don't see though,  is if mathematicians carry their internal dialog as "two apples plus two apples", but subconsciously run the streamlined version, excluding the counted artifacts.

I have lost my faith in a physical *primary* reality before deciding to study mathematics, because I realize that the crazy extraordinary achievement of bacteria and cells well already done by the numbers relatively to themselves and universal numbers. I have never seen evidences that there are primary real counted artifacts. But my work just show that this can be tested, and with QM’s confirmation of Mechanism, I would say that we did not found evidences for such artifacts. 

I think we are not addressing the same question, or you assume some non-computationalism. 

[rf] We're working different side or the street, maybe in different towns on different planets.   I am rather focus in on molecules and molecular patterns, with patterns nested within other patterns -- lots of structural coding and synthesis rather than computationalism....

 

My goal is to figure out what is matter, without denying consciousness. Eventually, that leads, in the frame of mechanism, to the abandon of Aristotle idea that there is an ontologically existing universe. To put it shortly, it is only a dream made by infinitely many numbers.

Best regards,

Bruno

[rf] My approach is to look inward and notice the common denominator of ~both the ~physical and ~mental artifacts.  I end up creating a new noun or two which improves options for expression and that illuminates nested structural coding as an inherent part of our ontology.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/3CD7845F-15B5-4AFC-AE0C-F3C14E888522%40ulb.ac.be.

[Paul Werbos]

I asked Ralph Frost: 

 

But what can one do with macroscopic rod magnets?

Ralph:     ...Handy, particularly for students who are math- or visually challenged, or those who cannot afford the time and effort to otherwise acquire physical intuition via the established  abstract math prerequisites.

Interesting. It reminds me of when I visited Leuven, on their campus open house day. They showed off a triple pendulum, well oiled, which orbited around in a chaotic kind of way. They used this to give people a physical intuition for "classical chaos" originally studied by Poincare. Most of the people studying chaos I knew were focusing on systems being forced by inputs from the outside, offsetting dissipation, but here there was a kind of chaos even in an energy conserving system with no inputs from the outside. I went and bought a book by Lichtenberg explaining such things further. This very same type of mathematics is important of course to understanding the larger world we are part of.

 

   Paul:

Maxwell's laws and Newtonian mechanics mostly do a good job of characterizing what we can do with such systems, when we do not inject new capabilities like quantum entanglement which require new technologies/designs. For energy generation... I have worked out the case for continuous systems governed by a large class of partial differential equations (PDE), but not done much for the practical classical case, because it did not look promising.

Ralph: My hunch is the breakthroughs or more efficient designs emerge in nested" or what you might consider "hierarchical" designs that function at natural resonances.  Structure them in certain ways; set them in the environment and ~let them resonate. 

Resonant modes certainly are an important part of the modern quantum mechanical treatment of energy and thermodynamics. Now that I have assimilated the need to accept macroscopic Schrodinger cats and to live in the humble universe of Modified (Markov Random Field) Quantum Electrodynamics (MQED), maybe I need to pay more real attention to something called the quantum grand canonical ensemble, the density operator used in practical work in quantum engineering and quantum chemistry (even chip design, not just quantum technology). But resonant modes have a way of dissipating away. There are certain patterns, informally called "solitons" by nonmathematicians (or mathematicians talking to ordinary folks like physicists), which do not resonate away, but the understanding of the mathematics of solitons in three spatial dimensions is amazingly primitive and narrow even today. Is it possible to design blocks of matter where order emerges from chaos in a useful way? The only way I know of is to reverse the arrow of time, but it may be easier to develop such capabilities "from the bottom up," by better understanding the time-symmetry of much simpler systems. Or not. I have not really looked for other ways. 

People spent a lot of effort trying to develop gyroscopes which would keep spinning forever (important for navigation), but when I looked into details a couple of years ago, I learned that modern "gyroscopes" are commonly quantum optics instruments which require energy input from the outside. (It is discussed in the seminal text by Scully and Zubairy.) What keeps the electron spinning?

 

 

IPW:  don't have a formal interpretation of what "nesting" means. 

[rf] One inside another; hierarchical; like what is present in subatomic particles/fields within atomic within molecular....      I am ~saying structure within structure is fundamental.   I suspect the dominant scientific model sees things differently, flatter, more like the assumed "empty space", so "nested structure" is unfamiliar even though, you know,  sub-atomic within atomic within molecular within planetary within galactic within neubulii -- etc..  Multi-dimensionalism enabling multi-dimensional transport, etc..

  

It sounds a bit like the usual great chain of approximation, which can be built up from the most basic physics to successive levels of approximation addressing emergent phenomena at every greater levels of time and space. And which entails both modeling and design of subsystems and systems. 

[rf] Yet, notice you begin with the tenets of space and time and somehow  muddle on about "levels of space and time",  while saying you don't track on "nesting".   Also you, yourself, advocate for some type of "field" as in  mqed.

Ah, the word "muddle" is a bit of a non-no here, is it not?

I do not use the word "nesting" but that does not imply lack of clarity about levels or hierarchies, or about subsystems within systems in design. It is an old concept, not news at all to many of us. Also, there are more complete and rigorous things out there in that complicated space which is far more diverse than "nesting" or "matryushka dolls" suggest. In engineering, multiscale models are a huge cottage industry, and I saw many systems for energy-economic modeling built on that principle many decades ago. Come to think of it, what of all the competing flavors of modular design in computer software? In neural networks, I have developed general forms of temporal and spatial chunking which go beyond the narrow limits of more ancient types of hierarchical organization. 

 

   

I suppose it would be taboo for me to suggest you consider that space and time are the wild-eyed, unfounded assumptions  or approximations.  Please try it though.      My impression is that intuitively, one can peer within space-time and xQED's and observe nested structured~duality  within 'both'. 

David Deutsch has a new book, not the Fabric of Reality, where he tries it. Penrose once spoke at a Pribram workshop, where he asked whether we might find ways to use neural network mathematics rather than the kind of math traditional in physics, in modeling physics. Since I developed the core of that neural network mathematics, I certainly looked into it. My impression is that most physics today is like classes of preschoolers (who believe in stuff like metaphysical observers) 

and kindergarteners (who fully understand David Deutsch's formulation of QED and Western forms of quantum computing), and that it is premature to try to dump calculus on these poor kids. The first grade, MQED, is already a major challenge or next step in progress of understanding, if progress can be made on this planet before we kill ourselves off. There is more than one additional grade beyond MQED, and more than one subject even in the second grade.

PW: OK, that's a level more basic than the macroscopic magnets. Quantum mechanics certainly is important in describing molecules. Is this kind of chemistry important to the way in which "soul" perturbs our ordinary mundane human bodies?

[rf]  I think I read once that magnets only have a quantum mechanical ~description (no classical physics account) so fiddling with magnetic tetrahedra is or is like fiddling with ~quantum mechanical tetrahedra.  So, I am really playing around with a multiple state non-classical simple machine.   Playing with two magnets shows there is like  ~one way to get attraction but two ways to get repulsion. And ~feeling this pattern more shows that repulsion is attraction with one-half spin -- or vise-versa. So the pattern is observable right there in the macro-physical.

No. The behavior of ordinary macroscopic magnets can normally be described quite well using classical physics. But maybe the source you are citing talked about what goes on inside magnets, why magnetism occurs at all, which generally involves flipping the spins of atoms. Spin is a key property of atoms in quantum mechanics, but the usual Ising models do not actually invoke quantum mechanics. 

Most of the electronic and photonic industries and research is NOT focused on quantum computing, and question the need for it.

But as feature sizes grow smaller, the concept of "unintentionally quantum systems" has more traction.  Magnet design may be becoming more quantum mechanical in that way, but I have not worked with that part of the industry.

... But in truth, we don't know. We do know that our mundane bodies and DNA are the result of nearly a billion years of effective natural selection, and that we do not know the underlying principles of "soul"-body interaction well enough yet to build similar capabilities into the systems we build. That may be just as well, but I was intrigued last week by the question of what we might learn even from such humble looking phenomena as poltergeist stuff.

[rf]  I suppose that is one direction for scientific research.  Good luck with that. 

Am not sure what you are really saying here. Good luck with poltergeist research? 

Well, it certainly is not an easy matter, but nothing I have ever done was an easy thing, really, as I defined the challenges. (Unless you count cleaning the coffee maker, but my wife urges me to rise better even to that challenge.) But it could be informative, and there are several ways to go at it -- best being multiple ways in parallel, learning from each other. Guys who read Dean Radins's book mostly know the old book by Puthoff and Targ -- but I remember when I gave equal weight to that book and a more popular book, Conjuring Up Philip, by Owens... and reports from University of Toronto on details. But for myself, even if I go theoretical, I will probably either do nothing or take a first person approach.. if I do anything at all. Important, but there are ever so many important things to be done.. 

 

 I still think there are returns just with picking a different structure and a different ~duality and working outward from those new intial conditions; then considering patterns between the two starting points.  Where you mention DNA and natural selection you are sort of glossing over a lot of nested structural coding.

"glossing": another no-no. A cynic would say that academia are replete with such no-nos, which usually just mean "read my paper." Or are you saying we need a more complete model of how natural selection works? There are many quite formal competing models, and the interface with thermodynamics, time symmetry and noosphere are interesting, but it is not necessary to get into those details in order to see what I was pointing to. Yes, the trees are important, but seeing trees is not a proper argument against looking at the forest.

 

[rf] Maybe so. But the laws of physics in their initial modern approximation also rest on the assumed tenets of space and time.  Other instances of nested structured~duality   are available.

One can imagine a physical universe without special or general relativity, but to make progress there are other assumptions which it is more promising to question in physics, for sure, and perhaps even in spiritual exploration. It is odd how spiritualism as a political movement says we should not be bound by physicist's notions of space in first person science, even as they insist on viewing things like silver cords as physical objects in a 3D space rather than mental constructs in mental space.

Maybe it helps me to have a different set of mathematics to draw on in exploring mental space, and not confusing that with physics, a different level.

 

PW: Yes, the paradox of the knower not knowing himself is a pervasive issue in human life in all cultures... so far.

[rf] Well-spoken. 

I do feel embarrased that I did not cite Nietzsche, who used similar words...

[rf] You DO have your own instances of nested structured~duality  and they are founded on the dominant tenets, right?

Do you ever consider beginning with revised tenets and/or a different structure?

Revised ideas and competing possibilities have been a huge part of my life, though I try to focus on real uncertainties and on what I learn next.

I have developed new structures a lot more than most people have; doing it in a realistic way is a lot harder than talking about it.

I have worked with many types of duality, yea even yin and yang. But it is not just one duality out there.

And I have said enough about nesting here already (with apologies to the birds who would want to hear more about their kind of nesting). 

Best of luck,

  Paul

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Ralph,

Thank you for the clarification. We might disagree enough to have an interesting conversation :)

On 02 Jan 2018, at 06:36, Ralph Frost wrote:

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and clarifications. I hear the words coming out of your mouth. However, while  I, too, think there are other different scientific paradigms accounting for the so-called ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts, better than is done in the dominant ~physical scientific paradigm, I  do not or cannot understand the instance of nested structured~duality that you view and put together or as you express it so far.

I am aware it is not that easy. You have to accompany me on the shoulders of giants (Gödel, Turing, Solovay, ...).

Yet, the basic idea are rather simple. 

We will see.

Some comments below.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. 

[rf] First, I don't think you were 'neutral' when studying ameobas, but you changed after having one or more insights and after experiencing and mastering the abstract math and mathematical logic lingo. 

Hmm... Not really. I don't like too much mention my personal feelings, but I don't remind having ever believe in primary matter. To me physics was the art of measuring numbers, inferring relation between numbers, and then verifying them, but my initial conception of reality was a dream more persistent than other dreams.

It took me time to understand that people "really believe" in what I tended to consider as a dream. The metaphysical problem was:  where that dream comes from? who is the dreamer? is there a possibility of awaken? what could justify the persistence and the long stories?, why does it hurts? etc. 

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

Second, I am assuming a nested structured~duality. 

At some point, I will ask you an axiomatic definition, but only if you use your structure as an argument against computationalism or its consequences, helping them to see where it break down. yet, you do seem to assume enough of QM (to get the oxygen and the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns, ...), so that's quite natural for me, as QM is what seem to obtained in the introspective number discourse (more on this plausibly later, but you can look at my papers).

Not so much just a physical reality 'out there'. Yes, I can sling up an instance that has   a physical reality “out there”, but  I'm more of the old time religion where I believe in the elements and in solar-driven photosynthesis generating food packets and oxygen, some of which aerobic organisms ingest and digest and respire, in concert with our microbial partners.  So, a lot of nested structural coding in nested fields within nested fields.

OK. But the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields. Very simple equation determined crazily nested structures, like I illustrate with the Mandebrot set, which iterated a simple polynomials in the complex (rational) plane. Very simple, apparently not nested at all creature, like a square two polynomials, can give rise to a supernested structure like the chaotic Mandelbrot set; or here, the quadri-brot  with the iteration of f(z) = z^5 + c: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqkMu4zn34

Maybe it is like your 'mechanism'. I can't tell what you mean by 'mechanism' so I likely cannot say more than I think there are some similarities. 

My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality. It appears in its indexical form already in the "King Milinda" greek-indian text, or in Chuang-Tseu and chinese philosophy, but in Occident, we attribute (its nth rebirth) to Descartes. It is the idea that we are (perhaps natural, perhaps physical) machines (we are invariant for the change of our elementary local constitution at some level, as biology illustrates). 

The nuance is brought by the discovery of the universal machine, and its limitations, and the fact that she is aware, in some sense, of its limitations.

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

[rf] My impression is that if you swap out my amagadala for a printer circuit board, maybe  there'd be improvements in my temperament, but probably ~I'd be different. Not the same self.   Plus there's some questions about hormonal secretions.    

OK. But if you don't introduce analog infinities of a very special type, it means that your substitution level might just take into account the hormonal secretion function and shape at some digital level of description. Mechanism is just the bet that some level of digital substitution exists. The consequence are still valid in the extreme case, like if your brain is the entire observable (or not) physical universe, at the quantum superstring level, with 10^35 decimals precision. 

MY problem with boosting the abstract math prerequisites is the duration and failure rates are already excessive, just on the ~physical side of things.  That's ~why I favor analog math, since the physical intuition can develop via the tactile channel, you know, as ~God intended. 

Yes, I am entirely OK with you. Later you will see that the universal numbers "rich enough" (Gödel-Löbian) agree with you too. Somehow the third arithmetical hypostases (obtained by the Bp-&-p nuance of Gödel's provability predicate Bp, the logic S4Grz1) leads to analog math, and justify it for the first person point of view. 

I guess we'll need to see how your test results pan out, though.  Any estimate on a schedule?

I would say that a modest, but non trivial part is already done.  The rest will need an army of mathematicians working for millennia and kalpa ... 

There is jobs for infinitely many creatures there. And the theory predicts a transfinity of surprises. The Unknown of the Numbers/machines is more unknown than any number/machine can ever conceive. The theology of number is a negative theology, mainly, like Plotinus, Proclus, but I think many idealist chinese and indian schools(*) too.

(*) I wrote a paper on this, which seems to be free up to the 7 february:

 B. Marchal. The east, the West and the universal machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology Volume 131, December 2017, Pages 251-260

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7K_1psKsZtI

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007961071730130X

Best,

Bruno

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLeMq%2BQj9XAw1DXPAt_Xi4s6pDM89G-UfKc1uQj77sY4nA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Ralph Frost]

Thanks, Paul. 

I appreciate your effort and patience.   I still encourage that the common denominator is a new, more unified widget: "nested structured~duality", as a single noun and not separated   "nesting", "structure" and "duality".  Thus, it's more like  Tao/yin-yang than just  yin-yang ala carte considered only within the cube/subjective-objective instance.

And, yes, I do suppose ME using the word "muddle" seems  or surely sounds like  an instance of the skunk  saying the stump stunk. Yet, I still think there is a paradigm shift/squabble  point in that region which I try to clarify below.You certainly do not muddle in your mastery of the detailed abstract mathematical physics approximations of physical aspects and rules within the dominant scientific paradigm. However, , somehow your off-hand dismissal or minimization of "nesting as fundamental" as what you term the usual great chain of approximations, to me, seems a bit too defensive or ill-considered.  Not that "your detailed math-physics approximations models are 'wrong' ", but that at issue is dredging up or drilling down into the underlying more unified tenets and developing the more robust scientific paradigm.  ...Or so it is that I think the issue is.

The underlying commonality that I am advocating is ~reality is nested structured~duality.  That is adequate enough to illuminate the process and various instances that we are all creating and running.  Plus by invoking a different nested structured~duality, I get a magnetic tetrahedral analog math that rather instantly delivers physical intuition on variable density multiple states differing in increments of one-half spin, with essentially no abstract math prerequisites.  Just by changing structure and duality. 

How come my instance does that and the dominant instance  does not?  Any thought?

I say it "works" because reality (both the so-called ~physical and the ~mental aspects and artifacts) is nested structured~duality.   

My perception is the dominant model is starting out and running with a different, fractured and/or non-nested structure involving different distinctions (different tenets) for initial conditions.   I project that one tenet is the assumption of xyz-cubic ~Cartesian-brand empty space, and always the notion of  "a beginning", but I really don't know what the tenets are  assumed or previously assumed and then "built" (nested) upon in the dominant scientific paradigm. Could you please make a short list?  Does it include non-nested structure/space and time? 

The question I am muddling about is on the paradigm tenets.   It seems to me that if assuming empty, non-nested space, but then specializing on cubic-related relations, that then considering "nesting as fundamental" would be in conflict with the initial condition of the dominant  paradigm.  Yes? 

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Ralph Frost: 

 

But what can one do with macroscopic rod magnets?

Ralph:     ...Handy, particularly for students who are math- or visually challenged, or those who cannot afford the time and effort to otherwise acquire physical intuition via the established  abstract math prerequisites.

Interesting. It reminds me of when I visited Leuven, on their campus open house day. They showed off a triple pendulum, well oiled, which orbited around in a chaotic kind of way. They used this to give people a physical intuition for "classical chaos" originally studied by Poincare. Most of the people studying chaos I knew were focusing on systems being forced by inputs from the outside, offsetting dissipation, but here there was a kind of chaos even in an energy conserving system with no inputs from the outside. I went and bought a book by Lichtenberg explaining such things further. This very same type of mathematics is important of course to understanding the larger world we are part of.

[rf] There are lots of things people can and do do with magnets.   Navigation comes to mind, where a compass reveals a fortuitous alignment to aid in tracing and retracing steps.  Note though, that we cross-reference the "north-south" labeling with our visual/spatial/location map/field and rarely think of our magnetic field being enfolded within other magnetic fields.  This field-nested-within-a-field connection, though, apparently goes back a ways in our biological structural coding since there are magnetic field/re-location relations connected with  magnetic materials in guts of insects and migratory birds.

Other things with magnets  are repulsing a leg of a magnetic tetrahedron over a like pole and then experiencing feeling/viewing damped anharmonic motion similar to swaying fields of golden grains or wind in the trees. But, again, physical intuition and appreciation accrue yet with no upfront abstract math prerequisite.  That might come in the later STEM grades if needed.  The two "classes of students, though, could still share a common *feel* or impression.

 

 

   Paul:

Maxwell's laws and Newtonian mechanics mostly do a good job of characterizing what we can do with such systems, when we do not inject new capabilities like quantum entanglement which require new technologies/designs. For energy generation... I have worked out the case for continuous systems governed by a large class of partial differential equations (PDE), but not done much for the practical classical case, because it did not look promising.

Ralph: My hunch is the breakthroughs or more efficient designs emerge in nested" or what you might consider "hierarchical" designs that function at natural resonances.  Structure them in certain ways; set them in the environment and ~let them resonate. 

Resonant modes certainly are an important part of the modern quantum mechanical treatment of energy and thermodynamics. Now that I have assimilated the need to accept macroscopic Schrodinger cats and to live in the humble universe of Modified (Markov Random Field) Quantum Electrodynamics (MQED), maybe I need to pay more real attention to something called the quantum grand canonical ensemble, the density operator used in practical work in quantum engineering and quantum chemistry (even chip design, not just quantum technology). But resonant modes have a way of dissipating away. There are certain patterns, informally called "solitons" by nonmathematicians (or mathematicians talking to ordinary folks like physicists), which do not resonate away, but the understanding of the mathematics of solitons in three spatial dimensions is amazingly primitive and narrow even today. Is it possible to design blocks of matter where order emerges from chaos in a useful way? The only way I know of is to reverse the arrow of time, but it may be easier to develop such capabilities "from the bottom up," by better understanding the time-symmetry of much simpler systems. Or not. I have not really looked for other ways. 

People spent a lot of effort trying to develop gyroscopes which would keep spinning forever (important for navigation), but when I looked into details a couple of years ago, I learned that modern "gyroscopes" are commonly quantum optics instruments which require energy input from the outside. (It is discussed in the seminal text by Scully and Zubairy.) What keeps the electron spinning?

 

 

IPW:  don't have a formal interpretation of what "nesting" means. 

[rf] One inside another; hierarchical; like what is present in subatomic particles/fields within atomic within molecular....      I am ~saying structure within structure is fundamental.   I suspect the dominant scientific model sees things differently, flatter, more like the assumed "empty space", so "nested structure" is unfamiliar even though, you know,  sub-atomic within atomic within molecular within planetary within galactic within neubulii -- etc..  Multi-dimensionalism enabling multi-dimensional transport, etc..

  

It sounds a bit like the usual great chain of approximation, which can be built up from the most basic physics to successive levels of approximation addressing emergent phenomena at every greater levels of time and space. And which entails both modeling and design of subsystems and systems. 

[rf] Are you assuming space and time as tenets and using those as tenets in scribbling up the more basic physics artifacts you mention? If that is ~roughly the case, then how do you account for what you seem to be saying is a somewhat out of focus "usual great chain of approximations"  reflecting similar detail? 

Or is that "other approximate" imagery coming about because your scientific paradigm presently lacks a model of ~consciousness (or structural coding) plus ~physical artifacts  more robust than just sorting items into subjective and objective hoppers? That is,  the detailed and specialized and consensual ~physics approximation is one instance of nested structured~duality  prompting or reflecting  others.  ~Somehow, all approximations have or are  ~internal NSD representations (within paradigms having  supportive or more unified common denominators.  

This ..issue.. may be  akin to the change in perspective from the earth-centric to helio-centric views.  It's sort of just differing perspectives on how one orients structure(s), including logical structures.  If groups assume non-nested structure  and then build/observe   various nested hierarchies, considering "nested structures as  fundamental" conflicts with the assumption/tenet of non-nested structure.

[rf] Yet, notice you begin with the tenets of space and time and somehow  muddle on about "levels of space and time",  while saying you don't track on "nesting".   Also you, yourself, advocate for some type of "field" as in  mqed.

Ah, the word "muddle" is a bit of a non-no here, is it not?

[rf] Oops. Pardon my mis-communication. I don't mean that you muddle in your mastery of things in the dominant physics/STEM paradigm.  What I am trying to point at is in  your perfection, still there is what it seems you dismiss as "the usual great chain of approximations". I certainly could be or am wildly defensive in the rather infinestimal instance of nested structured~duality that  I am running, but I still get the impression that in a scientific paradigm that supports ~physical AND ~mental, that the great chains of approximations are fundamental and the anomaly is one ~physical-only model claiming to carry ~both.

Again, pardon me blowing air directly on the raw nerve,  but I maintain that nesting is fundamental in the more unified scientific paradigm that supports  ~both ~physical and ~mental aspect and artifacts.  You MAY be able to observe this within your model if you consider how you stack mathematical logic and symbolic logic structures, or suggest non-classical models are ~within or support classical models.  

I do not use the word "nesting" but that does not imply lack of clarity about levels or hierarchies, or about subsystems within systems in design. It is an old concept, not news at all to many of us. Also, there are more complete and rigorous things out there in that complicated space which is far more diverse than "nesting" or "matryushka dolls" suggest. In engineering, multiscale models are a huge cottage industry, and I saw many systems for energy-economic modeling built on that principle many decades ago. Come to think of it, what of all the competing flavors of modular design in computer software? In neural networks, I have developed general forms of temporal and spatial chunking which go beyond the narrow limits of more ancient types of hierarchical organization. 

 

[rf] I expect you have a far greater knowledge of ""nesting" or hierarchical structual coding than I do.  Yet, I am still saying that in the more unified scientific paradigms, it's just necessary to adopt  "nesting"  or "nested structure" as a fundamental tenet.  I also expect that the more you look, the more instances you will see, too, since reality is nested structured~duality. 

Where you say "developing neural networks", do you mean  developing models of things people describe as "neural networks"?  I mean, did you actually connect neurons and synapses  and calculate/associate outcomes?

I am curious about such things because in part of my storyline, I am saying that in the  process of energy collection/conservation, the respiration reaction is also generating an internal representation of surroundings. The respiration reaction occurs within neurons (and other aerobic cells), energizing and structurally influencing, perhaps aligning  such cells.   I wonder how your neural networking model might handle or model such influential things.

 

   

I suppose it would be taboo for me to suggest you consider that space and time are the wild-eyed, unfounded assumptions  or approximations.  Please try it though.      My impression is that intuitively, one can peer within space-time and xQED's and observe nested structured~duality  within 'both'. 

David Deutsch has a new book, not the Fabric of Reality, where he tries it. Penrose once spoke at a Pribram workshop, where he asked whether we might find ways to use neural network mathematics rather than the kind of math traditional in physics, in modeling physics. Since I developed the core of that neural network mathematics, I certainly looked into it. My impression is that most physics today is like classes of preschoolers (who believe in stuff like metaphysical observers) 

and kindergarteners (who fully understand David Deutsch's formulation of QED and Western forms of quantum computing), and that it is premature to try to dump calculus on these poor kids. The first grade, MQED, is already a major challenge or next step in progress of understanding, if progress can be made on this planet before we kill ourselves off. There is more than one additional grade beyond MQED, and more than one subject even in the second grade.

PW: OK, that's a level more basic than the macroscopic magnets. Quantum mechanics certainly is important in describing molecules. Is this kind of chemistry important to the way in which "soul" perturbs our ordinary mundane human bodies?

[rf]  I think I read once that magnets only have a quantum mechanical ~description (no classical physics account) so fiddling with magnetic tetrahedra is or is like fiddling with ~quantum mechanical tetrahedra.  So, I am really playing around with a multiple state non-classical simple machine.   Playing with two magnets shows there is like  ~one way to get attraction but two ways to get repulsion. And ~feeling this pattern more shows that repulsion is attraction with one-half spin -- or vise-versa. So the pattern is observable right there in the macro-physical.

No. The behavior of ordinary macroscopic magnets can normally be described quite well using classical physics. But maybe the source you are citing talked about what goes on inside magnets, why magnetism occurs at all, which generally involves flipping the spins of atoms. Spin is a key property of atoms in quantum mechanics, but the usual Ising models do not actually invoke quantum mechanics. 

[rf] When you say "flipping the spins" is that also a reference to change in structure/orientation?

 

Most of the electronic and photonic industries and research is NOT focused on quantum computing, and question the need for it.

But as feature sizes grow smaller, the concept of "unintentionally quantum systems" has more traction.  Magnet design may be becoming more quantum mechanical in that way, but I have not worked with that part of the industry.

[rf] Not that I need to say it, but so far, neither have I. 

... But in truth, we don't know. We do know that our mundane bodies and DNA are the result of nearly a billion years of effective natural selection, and that we do not know the underlying principles of "soul"-body interaction well enough yet to build similar capabilities into the systems we build. That may be just as well, but I was intrigued last week by the question of what we might learn even from such humble looking phenomena as poltergeist stuff.

[rf]  I suppose that is one direction for scientific research.  Good luck with that. 

Am not sure what you are really saying here. Good luck with poltergeist research? 

[rf] Yes. The poltergeist  pointer struck me as out of place or negatively slanted.   Yet, upon reflection, (which sometimes occurs) I am the one saying reality is nested fields within nested fields and consider a single spectrum of repeatable subjectivity which includes unique and rare influences, with hunches on inter-dimensional transport, so poltergeist-like influences should be fair game.    I typically, though, consider such things, more as just different levels and types of nested structural coding.    That is, like in dreams or NDE, energetic transactions occur and when the person resumes communication, s/he protein-folds approximations. 

Of course, this sort of story goes along with impressions and expressions being nested structural codings as in genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, respirational, etc., structural coding (or memory structures), with, say, "past life" imagery perhaps transcribing into protein-folded inner impressions from sections of junk DNA.   

Well, it certainly is not an easy matter, but nothing I have ever done was an easy thing, really, as I defined the challenges. (Unless you count cleaning the coffee maker, but my wife urges me to rise better even to that challenge.) But it could be informative, and there are several ways to go at it -- best being multiple ways in parallel, learning from each other. Guys who read Dean Radins's book mostly know the old book by Puthoff and Targ -- but I remember when I gave equal weight to that book and a more popular book, Conjuring Up Philip, by Owens... and reports from University of Toronto on details. But for myself, even if I go theoretical, I will probably either do nothing or take a first person approach.. if I do anything at all. Important, but there are ever so many important things to be done.. 

 

 I still think there are returns just with picking a different structure and a different ~duality and working outward from those new intial conditions; then considering patterns between the two starting points.  Where you mention DNA and natural selection you are sort of glossing over a lot of nested structural coding.

"glossing": another no-no. A cynic would say that academia are replete with such no-nos, which usually just mean "read my paper." Or are you saying we need a more complete model of how natural selection works? There are many quite formal competing models, and the interface with thermodynamics, time symmetry and noosphere are interesting, but it is not necessary to get into those details in order to see what I was pointing to. Yes, the trees are important, but seeing trees is not a proper argument against looking at the forest.

[rf] Which forest, though?  I think I see what you are pointing at, but, again, to me it looks like your forest is extremely fine-tuned, cultivated and specialized, out into the 2nd and 3rd  epicycles, and very capable of modeling the ~physical aspects and artifacts alone,  but it is essentially tree-less in regard to concept, tenets, and/or  common denominators supporting ~both ~physical and ~mental features in one package -- even lacking in registering the common denominator of  the ubiquitous nested structured~duality  and nested structural coding.   In this way this "two forests" transition issue is somewhat analogous to  earth-centric having once been far more accurate in calculating detail yet still  fundamentally flawed, conceptually.

I mean no disrespect  and appreciate that the transition is very, very difficult, but we do face and wrestle with the scientific paradigm transition.  Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[rf] Maybe so. But the laws of physics in their initial modern approximation also rest on the assumed tenets of space and time.  Other instances of nested structured~duality   are available.

One can imagine a physical universe without special or general relativity, but to make progress there are other assumptions which it is more promising to question in physics, for sure, and perhaps even in spiritual exploration. It is odd how spiritualism as a political movement says we should not be bound by physicist's notions of space in first person science, even as they insist on viewing things like silver cords as physical objects in a 3D space rather than mental constructs in mental space.

Maybe it helps me to have a different set of mathematics to draw on in exploring mental space, and not confusing that with physics, a different level.

[rf]  There you sub-consciously go again: "a different level".   

Rather than trying to separate or divide and conquer: first physics; next ~mental; then reconcile..., perhaps you might consider it as  solving simultaneous equations  -- two related equations with one initially unknown unknown,  solving by the method of successive approximations.  That is, the current starting condition already has physics approximations and content somewhat confused within ~mental, and/or generated by ~mental so you start with the given.  It's already "nested". The first task may be to seek common denominators, or, more likely, to pick a common structure.  Along ~my route/path, I suppose the other rules are: no abstract math allowed; no established paradigm tenets, which I think prompts for structure as tetrahedral and duality as attraction-repulsion which boils down to attraction with and without one-half spin.  

Alternatively,  more likely what you recognize  as real mathematics, perhaps you could extend your neural network program so it continually has recursive calls to inward re-structuring influences as in the form of or akin to ~my 10^20 per second (system-wide) respiration reaction structural coding adjustments.  I consider there is a pattern/method to the inner adjustments but perhaps you could start out to run them as the type of randomness you enjoy, and meaningless, yet still influential since ~it supplies energy flow  and structural influence into or within the neural network.    The call to the inner function  could return, like, a twelve character string (I say, reflective of the surroundings), but which also be like an index of focal point aligning with prior (related) associations.  

 

PW: Yes, the paradox of the knower not knowing himself is a pervasive issue in human life in all cultures... so far.

[rf] Well-spoken. 

I do feel embarrased that I did not cite Nietzsche, who used similar words...

[rf] You DO have your own instances of nested structured~duality  and they are founded on the dominant tenets, right?

Do you ever consider beginning with revised tenets and/or a different structure?

Revised ideas and competing possibilities have been a huge part of my life, though I try to focus on real uncertainties and on what I learn next.

I have developed new structures a lot more than most people have; doing it in a realistic way is a lot harder than talking about it.

I have worked with many types of duality, yea even yin and yang. But it is not just one duality out there.

And I have said enough about nesting here already (with apologies to the birds who would want to hear more about their kind of nesting). 

Best of luck,

  Paul

[rf] I appreciate your effort and patience.   I still encourage that the common denominator is a new, more unified widget: "nested structured~duality", as a single noun and not separated   "nesting", "structure" and "duality".  Thus, it's more like  Tao/yin-yang than just  yin-yang ala carte considered only within the cube/subjective-objective instance.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgc7N6m_C8gCAYWbdbTq2HRAQ%3D72hqu9AJ80kR_ETZT22A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

I appreciate your patience and optimism,  but I am aware of the empty gulf on my part when it comes to mathematics, logic structures, axioms and proofs.  The interesting part of the conversation, if there is any,  may be pretty short.  I Googled and skimmed some definitions about logic and symbolic and mathematical logic... I think it has something to do with "picking a structure", so, from that ~I jump to NSD as like a root class of all logics, including irrational and dysfunctional/non-functional  ones (with which I have multi-year or perhaps lifetime experiences).  I sometimes appreciate/acknowledge broken or whacked out logics since, as other instances of NSD,   they apparently also replicate in natural ways. Similarly, I am skeptical of ~quantum mechanical based consciousness/logic models with the thought that IF those were applicable and operational then how come we are all not  instantly A LOT ~smarter, insightful,  and well-reasoned than we all actually are?    The proof seems to be in the pudding.  Our actual ~logic structures are just not  QM level perfect. As I think I said before,  I observe that our core energetic ~meaning comes from the ~respiration reaction, and all the abstracted wordful logic ~reasoning comes in secondary structural coding in the downstream hydrogen-bonding/protein-folding.  

What's that -- heathen- or barbarian-level logic?

Anyway,  more below....

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

Thank you for the clarification. We might disagree enough to have an interesting conversation :)

On 02 Jan 2018, at 06:36, Ralph Frost wrote:

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and clarifications. I hear the words coming out of your mouth. However, while  I, too, think there are other different scientific paradigms accounting for the so-called ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts, better than is done in the dominant ~physical scientific paradigm, I  do not or cannot understand the instance of nested structured~duality that you view and put together or as you express it so far.

I am aware it is not that easy. You have to accompany me on the shoulders of giants (Gödel, Turing, Solovay, ...).

Yet, the basic idea are rather simple. 

We will see.

Some comments below.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. 

[rf] First, I don't think you were 'neutral' when studying ameobas, but you changed after having one or more insights and after experiencing and mastering the abstract math and mathematical logic lingo. 

Hmm... Not really. I don't like too much mention my personal feelings, but I don't remind having ever believe in primary matter. To me physics was the art of measuring numbers, inferring relation between numbers, and then verifying them, but my initial conception of reality was a dream more persistent than other dreams.

It took me time to understand that people "really believe" in what I tended to consider as a dream. The metaphysical problem was:  where that dream comes from? who is the dreamer? is there a possibility of awaken? what could justify the persistence and the long stories?, why does it hurts? etc. 

[rf] I'd like to hear more of the more persistent dream...  Also, I must be approaching this with a two-year civil engineering technician's perspective - one example ~proves the principle.       I am not advocating "primary matter", either, but chemistry and biochemistry, to me, seem pretty relevant. The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.".

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis.  Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working.  Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers --physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings.   The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc.   I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices?   How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at.  I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert, where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

Second, I am assuming a nested structured~duality. 

At some point, I will ask you an axiomatic definition, but only if you use your structure as an argument against computationalism or its consequences, helping them to see where it break down. yet, you do seem to assume enough of QM (to get the oxygen and the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns, ...), so that's quite natural for me, as QM is what seem to obtained in the introspective number discourse (more on this plausibly later, but you can look at my papers).

[rf] Promise not to laugh on the NSD axiomatic expression?  

     Reality is nested structured~duality.   (1)

It's axiomatic definition or re-definition of reality.

Okay, you can laugh, but that is how it seems to me. Any and every part or sub-part, trial theory, model or artifact is an instance of nested structured~duality.   Once you know that principle you understand reality; you have the common denominator for all the ~physical and  the ~mental artifacts and aspects, including all trial theories and paradigms, and you roughly track on your own nested structural coding.

As for my view on QM,  my hunch is it is currently like an anomalous epicycle that develops in the way it has  after  starting out from  the non-nested cube/subjective-objective initial condition.   My hunch is that the ~QM matters will become more clear to us as more explorations are developed beginning with different instances of NSD  as initial conditions. 

For a rough example, consider starting with magnetic tetrahedron and rather quickly getting variable density multiple states differing in increments of one-half spin.  There are other structured-dualities to explore.  

Not so much just a physical reality 'out there'. Yes, I can sling up an instance that has   a physical reality “out there”, but  I'm more of the old time religion where I believe in the elements and in solar-driven photosynthesis generating food packets and oxygen, some of which aerobic organisms ingest and digest and respire, in concert with our microbial partners.  So, a lot of nested structural coding in nested fields within nested fields.

OK. But the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields. Very simple equation determined crazily nested structures, like I illustrate with the Mandebrot set, which iterated a simple polynomials in the complex (rational) plane. Very simple, apparently not nested at all creature, like a square two polynomials, can give rise to a supernested structure like the chaotic Mandelbrot set; or here, the quadri-brot  with the iteration of f(z) = z^5 + c: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqkMu4zn34

[rf] Ok, but  "the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields" is true except for the units on the fields.  Yes, I suppose the sequenced protein-foldings just reduce to differing sounds as a function of our material of construction, etc..  -- we are called to name things, after all.    So far, though, I have trouble erasing the units and recognizing what's left.  

...except for experiencing and pondering upon the raining bluish-white light in the unified resonant one-ness.    But people can do that any time they want with the regular unsubstituted equipment.    

Maybe it is like your 'mechanism'. I can't tell what you mean by 'mechanism' so I likely cannot say more than I think there are some similarities. 

My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality. It appears in its indexical form already in the "King Milinda" greek-indian text, or in Chuang-Tseu and chinese philosophy, but in Occident, we attribute (its nth rebirth) to Descartes. It is the idea that we are (perhaps natural, perhaps physical) machines (we are invariant for the change of our elementary local constitution at some level, as biology illustrates). 

The nuance is brought by the discovery of the universal machine, and its limitations, and the fact that she is aware, in some sense, of its limitations.

[rf] By "indexical form " does that point toward indexicals in linguistics or getting higher numbers by the indexed location of the digit in the linear array?

Also, biology seems monogamously wedded to "carbon-water-based" stuff, riding on a common sp^3 hybridized ~magnetictetrahedral-like pattern. I'll try to read more about the examples you named. Still in need of a simple explanation/example of  universal machine.

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

[rf] My impression is that if you swap out my amagadala for a printed circuit board, maybe  there'd be improvements in my temperament, but probably ~I'd be different. Not the same self.   Plus there's some questions about hormonal secretions.    

OK. But if you don't introduce analog infinities of a very special type, it means that your substitution level might just take into account the hormonal secretion function and shape at some digital level of description. Mechanism is just the bet that some level of digital substitution exists. The consequence are still valid in the extreme case, like if your brain is the entire observable (or not) physical universe, at the quantum superstring level, with 10^35 decimals precision. 

[rf] What do you propose as material as the substitute?  Also, when you say "digital" are you intending 2^n? 

Could you do 6^n or 12^n?

 

MY problem with boosting the abstract math prerequisites is the duration and failure rates are already excessive, just on the ~physical side of things.  That's ~why I favor analog math, since the physical intuition can develop via the tactile channel, you know, as ~God intended. 

Yes, I am entirely OK with you. Later you will see that the universal numbers "rich enough" (Gödel-Löbian) agree with you too. Somehow the third arithmetical hypostases (obtained by the Bp-&-p nuance of Gödel's provability predicate Bp, the logic S4Grz1) leads to analog math, and justify it for the first person point of view. 

[rf] I have the impression that your use of "first person", "third person" etc., is sort of like an anomaly or aberration of assuming a non-nested structure as fundamental.  It skews things.

I guess we'll need to see how your test results pan out, though.  Any estimate on a schedule?

I would say that a modest, but non trivial part is already done.  The rest will need an army of mathematicians working for millennia and kalpa ... 

There is jobs for infinitely many creatures there. And the theory predicts a transfinity of surprises. The Unknown of the Numbers/machines is more unknown than any number/machine can ever conceive. The theology of number is a negative theology, mainly, like Plotinus, Proclus, but I think many idealist chinese and indian schools(*) too.

(*) I wrote a paper on this, which seems to be free up to the 7 february:

 B. Marchal. The east, the West and the universal machine, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology Volume 131, December 2017, Pages 251-260

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7K_1psKsZtI

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007961071730130X

Best,

Bruno

Best regards to you,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm. 

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/3CD7845F-15B5-4AFC-AE0C-F3C14E888522%40ulb.ac.be.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLeMq%2BQj9XAw1DXPAt_Xi4s6pDM89G-UfKc1uQj77sY4nA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/D14B1F60-300B-41EE-9F26-D9013ADEECC9%40ulb.ac.be.

[Paul Werbos]

Hi, Ralph!

You have at times reminded me how Von Neumann listed three very basic questions in science which better math would be essential to explaining and unifying:

how does the universe work (physics); how do brains and minds work?; and "what is life"?

He made more progress on the first two, and for many reasons I built on those two leads. But what about the third?

As people talk about energy and entropy and thermodynamics and emergence and self-organization, I am reminded...

Even though life is more than just QED, understanding how a universe could evolve life in a QED "ocean" (with perhaps a little Newtonian gravity or even exogenous stars if necessary) would be a big step forwards in true deeper understanding, just as understanding the mouse brain was a huge step forward for understanding human minds (for those who are up on the former).

So how would that mathematics work?

In modern QED, EITHER KQED or MQED, the central issue in thermodynamics is: what are the possible equilibrium distributions Pr(psi(x)) for a universe governed by the usual Hamiltonian operator H? The answer is basically already well-known. Probability distributions for wave functions psi somehow can be represented as "density matrices" rho. The allowed equilibrium pdf are simply the set of exp(-kC)/Z, for all members C in the set of positive definite conserved operators C and positive real numbers k, where Z is the real number used to make probabilities add up to one. The set of operators C is also the same as the set of Hermitian operators which commute with H. That's it. Usually C is represented as a linear combination of H itself, charge, and such. This is called the Grand Canonical Ensemble. Somehow, if life or any other kind of nonlocal pattern would exist in equilibrium in ANY EUCLIDEAN UNIVERSE , it would basically BE there already implied in this "grand canonical ensemble."

Where hierarchies or approximate hierarchies or lattices or networks or nesting fit into this is in trying to approximate this fundamental equation, and trying to deduce its relevant properties. And that's basically all there is.  

But actually, there is also an object I would call an "augmented density matrix" defined over 4D space-time. Its properties are also important to articulating properties of life and energy which we are interested in. 

But there are other challenges I will be putting more of my time into, because of how severely oversubscribed I am right now.

Best of luck,

   Paul

 

Thanks, Paul. 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgc7N6m_C8gCAYWbdbTq2HRAQ%3D72hqu9AJ80kR_ETZT22A%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLd-7nV2ndQB8o%3DLtNpoY6FrVXgEBLS4_LORq8KFFq3LFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Paul!

Thank you for your kind words and compressed summary of all physical artifacts as modeled by ~QED abstract math relations   and the mention of Von Neumann ...who I went back  and skimmed over a tiny bit to get an overview of his extensive contributions.

I was reading the Wikipedia on Von Neumann's contribution to QM:  """The physics of quantum mechanics was thereby reduced to the mathematics of Hilbert spaces and linear operators acting on them. For example, the uncertainty principle, according to which the determination of the position of a particle prevents the determination of its momentum and vice versa, is translated into the non-commutativity of the two corresponding operators. """, and, elsewhere links about the Alain Aspect research, perhaps  indicating a need for different notion/conceptual model about QM.  

It reminded me of the analog math version of Heisenberg's "Gamma-ray photon thought experiment" -- uncertainty principle approximation --  that I play around with with a repulsed magnetic tetrahedron as an "electron" and a handheld probe magnet as "gamma-ray photon" (see the two relevant slides at https://magnetictetrahedra.com/images/phpshow.php?newGD&slides&1 ).   I expect readers  can remember the feel of magnetic repulsion and so can imagine moving the probe magnet (handheld gamma-ray photon) to "push" at the "electron" which may already be in some other damped anharmonic motion in the enfolding (space-time, i.e., gravitational-magnetic) fields.  Fields interact but the participants still can't quite determine position and momentum accurately, both at the same time, you know, because reality is also nested fields within nested fields. The analog model  shows that "measurement" is really "associative interaction" or "perturbation" and the "measurement notion or feature" is also a relation within the abstract math model/assumptions.  Welcome back  to nested fields within nested fields many-body with overlap into "mental aspects". 

Due to streaming *feel* through the tactile channel, participants get ~some physical intuition on ~the quantum mechanical uncertainty issue rather directly, in this case, just by imagining the *feel*.

As I thought about Von Neumann's abstract math adaptation translated as "non-commutativity of the two operators", a hunch grew of  "that's not actually what is going on...", of course, I mean, IMO according to the NSD analog math model I am running.  

That is,   how I would try to ~explain this is to point out that dragging or conjuring  "position" down into the electron-photon level is already trying to un-sub-consciously inter-mix classical with non-classical levels  (or maybe, sets). So, maybe folks  can insert the abstract math operators and do impressive abstract mathematics in the externalized expressions, but (from my perspective)  the notions are already flawed, confused  and convoluted.   I'd re-approximate the story as something like position and momentum are at different levels of nested structured~duality  -- sort of at differing levels of 'nested structure' within the internal structural coding. FWIW, I would not put position and momentum ~operators/notions on or within the same nesting level, and therefore that's ~why they don't 'commute', or another reason ~why these two have the so-called inherent uncertainty.  But, a part of that misunderstanding comes from fiddling from a slightly flawed, non-nested  conceptual model that lacks  a model of "consciousness" more robust than the two-bin, subjective-objective categorizations.

But, along this alternate larger can of worms track, there is another maybe even more difficult thing to try to communicate which gets back to the point you raise about working just two, versus all three of the questions you say that Von Neumann posed.  I likely won't say this right but it roughly is like, the dominant scientific model that you and others have mastered (and I haven't) have the two segments -- physics tenets and rules, and the externalized math/symbolic logic structures plus abstract maths symbols and expressions. And the combo works in many very wonderful ways. 

In the model I am advocating, I have a terribly approximate, but slightly more unified analogmodel that ~models ~all three of the items: physics, brain/mind and ~life.   About the only things my model has going for it is the symbolic representation is in the ~tetrahedral, sp^3 hybridized pattern, cast-able as magnetic tetrahedra and then also as the 10^20 per second  ~6^n stacks of (~tetrahedral) water molecules forming during our aerobic respiration, and perhaps as a somewhat analogous symbolic  match with ~Koltick's electron structure (see:  http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/1997/970110.Koltick.electron.html ). So, the pattern is simple enough to visualize and it's also a life-happening thing, for all of us, at the level of our sustenance and internal expressions.

In any event, allowing the approximation, my model has tactile-visualizable internal structural coding in ordered water (internal to neurons/all cells) that has relevance in life energy collection/conservation (something like a primary meaning or ~value (also in the "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" sense)), providing internal representations of surroundings, and has linkages via hydrogen-bonding with all expression via protein-formation/folding influences.   

Anyway,  in this "more complete"  but terribly approximate model that I am advocating, the internal structural coding system is sort of a primary thing that is always generating ALL the nested structured~duality expressions making up any and all of the dominant and non-dominant n-segment scientific paradigms.  Probably I should ask here, "Would you like extra hubris on that?", since it already is sounding way, way over the top.  

The distinction I am trying to make, though, may be related to one of Von Neumann's other contributions in set theory, which I paraphrase here as "order matters" [ axiom of foundation proposed that every set can be constructed from the bottom up in an ordered succession of steps by way of the principles of Zermelo and Fraenkel. If one set belongs to another then the first must necessarily come before the second in the succession. This excludes the possibility of a set belonging to itself. -- Wikipedia John von Neumann ] -- which I think also points at "nesting as fundamental" and my storyline of generating states via nesting structure.

The ~overall point is, again, that to conceptualize  "looking for the position of an electron", the analyst is first of all dragging down his or her internal structural coded concept/model of classical ~position and assuming it is applicable to "an electron/field".    The position, or location notion/model, though is ~valid in our classical notions, which most likely ~means ala xyz-cubic coordinations.   Yes, we (people good at math)  can impose it and decide that position and momentum are ~non-commutative, and that is probably really easy to do using an externalized non-nested logic model assuming or accepting the absence of a ~working internal structural coding model (of the life segment).   In considering the three-segment package, though,  life-energy transactions are primary, and the two-segment package is then just an after the fact expression of recipes and procedures for improved or novel energy collection/conservation techniques. A level and fulcrum IS really, really helpful -- well worth detailing and conveying the pattern.    But that advantage is already implicitly registered within the internal energy-structure analog math structural coding.  

Back to the position-momentum analog model,    note that I can set up and use any of the five states of the magnetic tetrahedron, support magnet plus probe magnet and, in essence, be in the dark about whether the repulsion is north-north or south-south.   Since the rule is to never mark magnet ends with some visual cue (since there are no such markers within, say, sub-atomic particles), the only way to determine the specific polarity property is to test, say, the probe magnet to see how it aligns within the enfolding field.   Before testing, the participant's understanding of the repulsion polarity is somewhat or like in a state of ~superposition.  It could be north-north or south-south, and maybe one could say "it's both", and which it specifically is probably only matters in nuances and at different orientations in different parts of the enfolding field (like whether in the northern or southern hemispheres of Earth). Without ~testing there is no way to tell.   Also, notice that to specify the polarity, we take and cross-reference to a "position" measurement -- Does an end point toward western Canada or at Polaris, the  North star?-- so we are already crossing and nesting  boundaries from one magnetic field to another, position or location field type of  measure.  An alternative might be to check "spins", but it's still linked back to nesting with position and is clearly a ~mental artifact/concern.

Moreover, notice that any such polarity measure is also a bit ambiguous  in the ~infinite regress-like mode since the Earth's magnetic field is nested within the solar magnetic field within the ....  within the ... , etc.  So we only have a relative or truncated or assumed,  sort of an ad hoc determination, as is the case with many other  of our measures of other instances of duality. 

In addition, as an asiide, notice that pushing the "electron" analog model too much results in it shifting from a wavelinear to an entangled or grounded state or pattern.  Note for visually challenged participants: with the actual analog model, there is an audible "click" when this ~collapse occurs to the ~classical state.

Jumping ~ahead or sideways, the ~reason I make this kind of completely outlandish statement/assessment is  in my model,  all various abstract  math widgets are understood as first  scribbled out in nested magnetic-tetrahedra-like sp^3 hybridized structures, aka, structurally coded in the "carbon-water-based" analog math. At least I have a tiny placeholder for "all three segments", or for "all three as one", and I recognize the "life-energy-pattern" segment as primary.   In contrast, the actual, functional internal analog model is either completely missing or abstracted away  from the dominant two-segment package, or the internal structural coding is , as the above story tries to illustrate, entangled and/or totally ~hidden among the various two-segment expressions.  In any event, lacking the primary segment and in a non-nested way, despite the accuracy of  the dominant physical model,  getting to describe the life-segment from the two-segment initial ~physical condition is a bit like trying to describe fire  only in terms of its smoke. It's difficult to do when beginning from the wrong tenets.  That is, ~you and Von Neumann, by working just on the first two of his three questions [physics plus brain/mind; excluding 'what is ~life?], do  develop the highly polished externalized  symbolic logic representations in the abstract maths and logic structures -- and it is absolutely vital and necessary to get these approximate expressions (tectonic plates) developed ~first.   Yet, in so doing, ~you are also, and still depending on the internal analog (protein-folding) life-segment expressions while also packing and re-twisting some of the internal structural coding into, sort of, ~your own  preferred "living structures", sort of, while ~you deny the existence of such "living structures".   

So, yes, we have a whole structurally coded system for "position" and "location",   but, I'm saying,  that  is a different NSD than the one we have for "momentum", existing at a different level of NSD organization.   ~Solving or approximating the three-segment problem  involves re-solving a completely different set of ~simultaneous equations, where order and nesting matter, than re-solving the two-segment set.  They are different challenges.

A bit more, below...

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Ralph!

You have at times reminded me how Von Neumann listed three very basic questions in science which better math would be essential to explaining and unifying:

how does the universe work (physics); how do brains and minds work?; and "what is life"?

He made more progress on the first two, and for many reasons I built on those two leads. But what about the third?

As people talk about energy and entropy and thermodynamics and emergence and self-organization, I am reminded...

Even though life is more than just QED, understanding how a universe could evolve life in a QED "ocean" (with perhaps a little Newtonian gravity or even exogenous stars if necessary) would be a big step forwards in true deeper understanding, just as understanding the mouse brain was a huge step forward for understanding human minds (for those who are up on the former).

So how would that mathematics work?

In modern QED, EITHER KQED or MQED, the central issue in thermodynamics is: what are the possible equilibrium distributions Pr(psi(x)) for a universe governed by the usual Hamiltonian operator H? The answer is basically already well-known. Probability distributions for wave functions psi somehow can be represented as "density matrices" rho. The allowed equilibrium pdf are simply the set of exp(-kC)/Z, for all members C in the set of positive definite conserved operators C and positive real numbers k, where Z is the real number used to make probabilities add up to one. The set of operators C is also the same as the set of Hermitian operators which commute with H. That's it. Usually C is represented as a linear combination of H itself, charge, and such. This is called the Grand Canonical Ensemble. Somehow, if life or any other kind of nonlocal pattern would exist in equilibrium in ANY EUCLIDEAN UNIVERSE , it would basically BE there already implied in this "grand canonical ensemble."

Where hierarchies or approximate hierarchies or lattices or networks or nesting fit into this is in trying to approximate this fundamental equation, and trying to deduce its relevant properties. And that's basically all there is.  

But actually, there is also an object I would call an "augmented density matrix" defined over 4D space-time. Its properties are also important to articulating properties of life and energy which we are interested in. 

But there are other challenges I will be putting more of my time into, because of how severely oversubscribed I am right now.

Best of luck,

   Paul

[rf]  Thanks. I am appreciative of what you summarize and present above, but still must admit that I am quite ignorant of the abstract math and mathematical physics, and, as an old dog,  likely will remain so.

In Googling  "Hamiltonian"  which I get the impression is like model of all the instances of ~physical stuff  we might see or bump into in a room or universe, I see the phrase  ~measure or operator of "total energy" and, from my perspective,  I notice  that my storyline   references   "energy" and "structure", and if there is a ~valid difference or distinction in my storyline it likely boils down to carrying ~both (energy and structure) as fundamental -- centrally, in ~life and/or ~consciousness being more so ~structural or nested structural than the two-segment or dominant or other trial scientific paradigms hold or tolerate.  

For instance, in my storyline I  scribble out the "carbon-water-based" tetrahedral structure and structural coding, scalping off energy flow in the respiration reaction while also generating tetrahedral structural coding in the energy-correlated ordered water structures -- being an internal analog representation of our surroundings and relating with expression via hydrogen-bonding.   

Moreover, new expressions (thoughts) sort of don't validate and replicate (in my trial theory) except  by echoing as (protein-folded) words. So the sequencing and the nested structures in our channels  generate  the emergent version of all new (and old) thoughts.  Structure and nested structure is fundamental, particularly in the 3rd segment with enzyme catalyzed life~consciousness, which I prefer to point at as "structural coding".

Thus, I observe the dominant two-segment scientific paradigm has "structure" and "structures" littering the landscape and topological terrain, embedded in the xyz-cubic formatting and in externalized mathematical and logical structures, plus ~symmetry, perhaps ~parity and (nested) classical and non-classical epi-cycles.   Yet, it has no tenet on structure as fundamental.   

Intuitively, structure, nested structure, and particularly nested structural coding  closely align with the core notion of "consciousness". When we get down to noticing genetic, epigenetic. metabolic. respirational and then hydrogen-bonding protein-folding for all expression, we are referencing structured structures.  It is similar when pointing at math and logic structures as well as abstract math equations/teeter-totters.  The Hamiltonian of "total energy" is some sort of structure which adds up, again, I think,  to reality, both ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts,  being nested structured~duality.

Thanks, Paul. 

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgc7N6m_C8gCAYWbdbTq2HRAQ%3D72hqu9AJ80kR_ETZT22A%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLd-7nV2ndQB8o%3DLtNpoY6FrVXgEBLS4_LORq8KFFq3LFg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdR-BaTkd%2BrwJZdFfVrzCcFy6wGZ3BkH6zxJQ2PB%3D3quA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hello Ralph,

On 5 Jan 2018, at 06:10, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I appreciate your patience and optimism,  but I am aware of the empty gulf on my part when it comes to mathematics, logic structures, axioms and proofs.  The interesting part of the conversation, if there is any,  may be pretty short.  I Googled and skimmed some definitions about logic and symbolic and mathematical logic... I think it has something to do with "picking a structure", so, from that ~I jump to NSD as like a root class of all logics, including irrational and dysfunctional/non-functional  ones (with which I have multi-year or perhaps lifetime experiences).  I sometimes appreciate/acknowledge broken or whacked out logics since, as other instances of NSD,   they apparently also replicate in natural ways. Similarly, I am skeptical of ~quantum mechanical based consciousness/logic models with the thought that IF those were applicable and operational then how come we are all not  instantly A LOT ~smarter, insightful,  and well-reasoned than we all actually are?    The proof seems to be in the pudding.  Our actual ~logic structures are just not  QM level perfect. As I think I said before,  I observe that our core energetic ~meaning comes from the ~respiration reaction, and all the abstracted wordful logic ~reasoning comes in secondary structural coding in the downstream hydrogen-bonding/protein-folding.  

What's that -- heathen- or barbarian-level logic?

We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. 

When you correct the misuse of Gödel by Penrose or Lucas, the argument reverses itself, and shows that Gödel’s theorem actually protects the machines from the reductionist conception we did have since. 

Anyway,  more below....

OK

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

Thank you for the clarification. We might disagree enough to have an interesting conversation :)

On 02 Jan 2018, at 06:36, Ralph Frost wrote:

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and clarifications. I hear the words coming out of your mouth. However, while  I, too, think there are other different scientific paradigms accounting for the so-called ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts, better than is done in the dominant ~physical scientific paradigm, I  do not or cannot understand the instance of nested structured~duality that you view and put together or as you express it so far.

I am aware it is not that easy. You have to accompany me on the shoulders of giants (Gödel, Turing, Solovay, ...).

Yet, the basic idea are rather simple. 

We will see.

Some comments below.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. 

[rf] First, I don't think you were 'neutral' when studying ameobas, but you changed after having one or more insights and after experiencing and mastering the abstract math and mathematical logic lingo. 

Hmm... Not really. I don't like too much mention my personal feelings, but I don't remind having ever believe in primary matter. To me physics was the art of measuring numbers, inferring relation between numbers, and then verifying them, but my initial conception of reality was a dream more persistent than other dreams.

It took me time to understand that people "really believe" in what I tended to consider as a dream. The metaphysical problem was:  where that dream comes from? who is the dreamer? is there a possibility of awaken? what could justify the persistence and the long stories?, why does it hurts? etc. 

[rf] I'd like to hear more of the more persistent dream...  Also, I must be approaching this with a two-year civil engineering technician's perspective - one example ~proves the principle.       I am not advocating "primary matter", either, but chemistry and biochemistry, to me, seem pretty relevant.

OK. I guess you are aware that the current paradigm is that you can reduce molecular biology and biochemistry to chemistry, and chemistry to the quantum electrodynamic itself supposed to be unifiable with all other forces (more less done except for gravitation), and most current philosophers and scientists believe/assume a fundamental physical reality (which is an assumption in metaphysics/theology, which is my domain of interest and I use the scientific method in there). 

I tend to agree that human biology is reducible, at some level of description, to quantum physics, and my point is twofold: it is that IF we assume computationalism, then the “reduction” continue, and quantum physics get reduced to the bio or psycho or Theo - logy of the Turing universal machine.

If what I understand from your idea is correct, the life of the average universal numbers would look closely to the human biochemical life.

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.

The first axiom/question is:  do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?

Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?

The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers

Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.

--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. 

In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.

 The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? 

The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. 

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. 

Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. 

 I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? 

Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).

 How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.

Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.

I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.

Second, I am assuming a nested structured~duality. 

At some point, I will ask you an axiomatic definition, but only if you use your structure as an argument against computationalism or its consequences, helping them to see where it break down. yet, you do seem to assume enough of QM (to get the oxygen and the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns, ...), so that's quite natural for me, as QM is what seem to obtained in the introspective number discourse (more on this plausibly later, but you can look at my papers).

[rf] Promise not to laugh on the NSD axiomatic expression?  

     Reality is nested structured~duality.   (1)

It's axiomatic definition or re-definition of reality.

Okay, you can laugh,

Thanks! Laughing on some theory is always good. Laughing at some person is always bad ...

but that is how it seems to me.

But I like the idea. What is laughable, by a stubborn logician, say, is the qualification of axiomatic. Of course I use that term in a rather strict sense.

Let me give you the criteria for an axiomatic definition (in applied logic): you should be allowed to change all the names. So, axiomatically you are just saying that A is B.

What you are saying is of course much more than that, and it assumes some “Reality” (a complex concept in metaphysics), and then it assumes what you call “nested structured-duality”, and some link between. To communicate it to scientists (very rare in metaphysic, and you have the bad luck to met one) you need to either build an axiomatisation of your notion of nested-structure duality, or represent it is a known theory which has such an axiomatic presentation, and this is what I suppose you do, with the “usual quantum mechanic” (which is axiomatizable).

Then with life and the quantum orbital, we might share an intuition of the importance of the numbers 3 and 4.

(Sometimes I think that the whole Creation is a dream of the divisor of 24, but that feelings comes from my reading of Ramanujan. 24 was his favourite numbers, and it is indeed a very remarkable strange number).

Reality is what I search.

Any and every part or sub-part, trial theory, model or artifact is an instance of nested structured~duality. 

But keep in mind that after Gödel 1931, we know that arithmetic is very complex, not amenable to any complete theory. It is essentially incomplete able. That comes mainly from the presence of the universal numbers, which form a sort of Indra Net, as each universal machine reflects all the others, and the structure of all computations is very complex (in the third person picture), and then it is structured differently according to the points of view that the machine can adopt. It is hard for me to not expect very deep nesting, and I got, BTW, at least (8*7)/2 dualities structuring the arithmetical “Mindscape”. 

 Once you know that principle you understand reality; you have the common denominator for all the ~physical and  the ~mental artifacts and aspects, including all trial theories and paradigms, and you roughly track on your own nested structural coding.

OK. But you need to explain why they take the appearance they take, I mean a lot of question remains.

As for my view on QM,  my hunch is it is currently like an anomalous epicycle that develops in the way it has  after  starting out from  the non-nested cube/subjective-objective initial condition.   My hunch is that the ~QM matters will become more clear to us as more explorations are developed beginning with different instances of NSD  as initial conditions. 

Here I disagree, to be franc. To me QM begins with Newton’s understanding that light is particles and Huygens understanding that light is a wave. Nobody understands, and the de Broglie just told us that this weird aspect of nature was not just about light, but about all matter. Then with Einstein locality and Everett we see that QM describes infinities of interfering computation, which confirms what should be obvious in and about the arithmetical reality, (when understanding that it is Turing complete).And when the physics is extracted from self-reference, we can use incompleteness to separate the quanta and qualia. 

For a rough example, consider starting with magnetic tetrahedron and rather quickly getting variable density multiple states differing in increments of one-half spin.  There are other structured-dualities to explore.  

If your intuition is well founded, I bet they will pulsated in the realm of the finitely describable things and the Turing emulable realm.

Not so much just a physical reality 'out there'. Yes, I can sling up an instance that has   a physical reality “out there”, but  I'm more of the old time religion where I believe in the elements and in solar-driven photosynthesis generating food packets and oxygen, some of which aerobic organisms ingest and digest and respire, in concert with our microbial partners.  So, a lot of nested structural coding in nested fields within nested fields.

OK. But the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields. Very simple equation determined crazily nested structures, like I illustrate with the Mandebrot set, which iterated a simple polynomials in the complex (rational) plane. Very simple, apparently not nested at all creature, like a square two polynomials, can give rise to a supernested structure like the chaotic Mandelbrot set; or here, the quadri-brot  with the iteration of f(z) = z^5 + c: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqkMu4zn34

[rf] Ok, but  "the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields" is true except for the units on the fields.  Yes, I suppose the sequenced protein-foldings just reduce to differing sounds as a function of our material of construction, etc..  -- we are called to name things, after all.    So far, though, I have trouble erasing the units and recognizing what's left.  

...except for experiencing and pondering upon the raining bluish-white light in the unified resonant one-ness.    But people can do that any time they want with the regular unsubstituted equipment.    

Maybe it is like your 'mechanism'. I can't tell what you mean by 'mechanism' so I likely cannot say more than I think there are some similarities. 

My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality. It appears in its indexical form already in the "King Milinda" greek-indian text, or in Chuang-Tseu and chinese philosophy, but in Occident, we attribute (its nth rebirth) to Descartes. It is the idea that we are (perhaps natural, perhaps physical) machines (we are invariant for the change of our elementary local constitution at some level, as biology illustrates). 

The nuance is brought by the discovery of the universal machine, and its limitations, and the fact that she is aware, in some sense, of its limitations.

[rf] By "indexical form " does that point toward indexicals in linguistics or getting higher numbers by the indexed location of the digit in the linear array?

The first case. We can build program referirng to themselves. The trick is to apply a duplicator to a duplicator. If Dx => f(xx), then DD => f(DD).

Also, biology seems monogamously wedded to "carbon-water-based" stuff, riding on a common sp^3 hybridized ~magnetictetrahedral-like pattern.

On this planet, yes. Maybe it is important, but I am not sure. Anyway, as I said, that must be justified entirely. 

I'll try to read more about the examples you named. Still in need of a simple explanation/example of  universal machine.

OK. I will do that someday. 

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

[rf] My impression is that if you swap out my amagadala for a printed circuit board, maybe  there'd be improvements in my temperament, but probably ~I'd be different. Not the same self.   Plus there's some questions about hormonal secretions.    

OK. But if you don't introduce analog infinities of a very special type, it means that your substitution level might just take into account the hormonal secretion function and shape at some digital level of description. Mechanism is just the bet that some level of digital substitution exists. The consequence are still valid in the extreme case, like if your brain is the entire observable (or not) physical universe, at the quantum superstring level, with 10^35 decimals precision. 

[rf] What do you propose as material as the substitute?  Also, when you say "digital" are you intending 2^n? 

Could you do 6^n or 12^n?

Yes. You can use any Turing universal system. Digital means finite alphabet, decidable grammar, and “rich enough elementary behaviour rules”. The game of life of Conway is an example of simple universal system. All universal system can emulate any other universal system.

Here you can see a very short video showing a game of life pattern emulating a register universal machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My8AsV7bA94

 

MY problem with boosting the abstract math prerequisites is the duration and failure rates are already excessive, just on the ~physical side of things.  That's ~why I favor analog math, since the physical intuition can develop via the tactile channel, you know, as ~God intended. 

Yes, I am entirely OK with you. Later you will see that the universal numbers "rich enough" (Gödel-Löbian) agree with you too. Somehow the third arithmetical hypostases (obtained by the Bp-&-p nuance of Gödel's provability predicate Bp, the logic S4Grz1) leads to analog math, and justify it for the first person point of view. 

[rf] I have the impression that your use of "first person", "third person" etc., is sort of like an anomaly or aberration of assuming a non-nested structure as fundamental.  It skews things.

I think that distinction is the key to solve the mind-body problem. It is exactly what 1500 years of institionalized religion (and its atheistic mirror) try to put under the rug, I would say. How could a 3p grey brain makes a person living the 1p experience of redness?

Kind Regards,

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLfd-FR__QTwB4yGYy5-DWMuiCAtE%2BwMcw4MYxF5MJkAAA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""",  in ~my ~logic  can I revise or re-format that to: 

Reality is mechanism.    (bm)

whereas I advocate:

Reality is nested structured~duality.   (rf)    ?

Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """,  I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me.  

I encounter my wall of fog essentially as soon as when trying to ~visualize ~why one would represent counting numbers as chains of calls to an incrementor function -- successors. I am still wishing for a picture or diagram or clear example that illuminates the advantage of such an initial set of associations on the front-end of math/symbolic logic.   It looks or feels like obfuscation to me.   Again, pardon my persistent ignorance.  

I likely misunderstood some of your axiom questions, but I ~think I may have a basic problem with assuming 0 (zero). That is, in math, yes, I get it,  If I have 3 apples and I eat them, then I have zero apples.  However,  I had a (ralph) insight once that for fields, they really don't have or reach or recover from a value of zero, thus zero field strength (zero) doesn't ~exist.   "If anything" the ~field just disappears, dissipates, vanishes.   So I do sort of get that in the externalized abstract math and logic, zero exists and probabaly ALL that you write and theorize is completely valid in the rules of abstract math, but (according to me) it doesn't quite match up with the problems and challenges that we are actually nested within.  

Similarly, I think of vibrations or oscillations always between two or more states.   

More below....

[rf] I think the way to put it would be that something would be exceedingly flawed with your theory/approach if your modeling did not readily ~recovery  lots of sp^3 hybridized, tetrahedral, ~magnetic-tetrahedral-like ordered water, "carbon-water-based"  patterns. 

As well,  I am saying that ~structure is fundamental, particularly  tetrahedral structure,   I don't know it that "computes" or turns up as a fundamental feature in the dominant physics model where QED  mates with the other forces.    I state it based on observation and a hunch -- it's how we are able to bobble along in the local variable mass density solar fusion flux field and survive.     I don't know if structure is fundamental in the dominant scientific paradigm. Is it?

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

[rf]  The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,) But then, after that,  in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality   I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So  our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine  modifies its own tapes and structures and actions.    But in contrast to a math duplicator,  the cwb   can't just materialize an imaginary  oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running,  we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding.  

When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another   entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another  byte or two of memory.   But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.

I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or  universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.

[rf] Can you explain or demonstrate why or how, this successor notion is really an advantage?   To me, writing and thinking 3 is better than tracking on  s(s(s(0))) or the third successor of zero,  Also, it seems ~we have already  initiated the number line before associating  s(s(s(0))) with 3.   

The first axiom/question is:  do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?

Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?

The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).

[rf]  Can you give any possible example  or explanation of Mechanism, and are you saying this is like an unending instruction set?   -- NOT like my DNA, but maybe  like my DNA on epigenetic modifications?

 

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

[rf] Like I wrote above,   I sort of get  what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic  but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc.,  And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely or wholly match up with all ~life transactions.  So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. 

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line,   I might be inclined to agree with you.    I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. 

~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is  focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality.     But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms.  My hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat. I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that  what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.

If your theory doesn't have, yet have,  or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then   you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way.  Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes    in a somewhat disruptive manner.

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

[rf] Don't see why - what?   

Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.

[rf] So what does it mean in your theory if we shut off/revise your oxygen supply and you lose consciousness and/or can't  write logically correct statements, if all of that is substitutable with digital mechanism? 

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers

Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.

--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. 

In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.

 The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? 

[rf] Are you saying you don't see why or what life and living has to do with thinking math logic thoughts?

 

The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. 

[rf]  As above,  in math you can just make things appear. In life, one is inside a more deeply nested flow. 

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

[rf] I'd say you need the right structure. 

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. 

Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. 

 I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? 

Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).

 How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

[rf] I'm still not getting it.    Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix"?    I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.

Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.

I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.

[rf] Before I would blame my high school geometry teacher for me not tracking on proofs, I'd dial back to hitting my head on a rock when I was ten-ish, or simply just not having that sort of aptitude.  Although I think of myself as a tactile learner,  basically if I can't ~picture or sketch a diagram or something ~visular or imaginativeI probably will not understand it or have "a way in".    It's my lack.     

Second, I am assuming a nested structured~duality. 

At some point, I will ask you an axiomatic definition, but only if you use your structure as an argument against computationalism or its consequences, helping them to see where it break down. yet, you do seem to assume enough of QM (to get the oxygen and the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns, ...), so that's quite natural for me, as QM is what seem to obtained in the introspective number discourse (more on this plausibly later, but you can look at my papers).

[rf] Promise not to laugh on the NSD axiomatic expression?  

     Reality is nested structured~duality.   (1)

It's axiomatic definition or re-definition of reality.

Okay, you can laugh,

Thanks! Laughing on some theory is always good. Laughing at some person is always bad ...

but that is how it seems to me.

But I like the idea. What is laughable, by a stubborn logician, say, is the qualification of axiomatic. Of course I use that term in a rather strict sense.

Let me give you the criteria for an axiomatic definition (in applied logic): you should be allowed to change all the names. So, axiomatically you are just saying that A is B.

What you are saying is of course much more than that, and it assumes some “Reality” (a complex concept in metaphysics), and then it assumes what you call “nested structured-duality”, and some link between. To communicate it to scientists (very rare in metaphysic, and you have the bad luck to met one) you need to either build an axiomatisation of your notion of nested-structure duality, or represent it is a known theory which has such an axiomatic presentation, and this is what I suppose you do, with the “usual quantum mechanic” (which is axiomatizable).

Then with life and the quantum orbital, we might share an intuition of the importance of the numbers 3 and 4.

(Sometimes I think that the whole Creation is a dream of the divisor of 24, but that feelings comes from my reading of Ramanujan. 24 was his favourite numbers, and it is indeed a very remarkable strange number).

Reality is what I search.

[rf] From my view you are saying something like "reality is mechanism", which, to me is even less well defined than "reality is nested structured~duality".    I expect within 4 to 6 months once you tried the substitution and statement on you would agree, or, as is the way structural coding works, the expression would "grow on you" -- would come to make sense because you would observe many, many  instances and no exceptions.   

Any and every part or sub-part, trial theory, model or artifact is an instance of nested structured~duality. 

But keep in mind that after Gödel 1931, we know that arithmetic is very complex, not amenable to any complete theory. It is essentially incomplete able. That comes mainly from the presence of the universal numbers, which form a sort of Indra Net, as each universal machine reflects all the others, and the structure of all computations is very complex (in the third person picture), and then it is structured differently according to the points of view that the machine can adopt. It is hard for me to not expect very deep nesting, and I got, BTW, at least (8*7)/2 dualities structuring the arithmetical “Mindscape”. 

[rf] That sort of why I say nested structured~duality   is a tenet. 

 Once you know that principle you understand reality; you have the common denominator for all the ~physical and  the ~mental artifacts and aspects, including all trial theories and paradigms, and you roughly track on your own nested structural coding.

OK. But you need to explain why they take the appearance they take, I mean a lot of question remains.

[rf]  How things are different? How things are the same?    The BIG pattern recognition hit, for me, was observing  how  the huge fraction of our selves and our surroundings  fits in with the ~tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized patterns -- just a handful, akin to the five states of the ~inner magnetic tetrahedron.   It's like a different sort of elegant mystery -- all water, all methane and its derivatives, all ammonia and amines, all silicates as in the crusts of terrestrial planets, compression patterns in solar fusion...  

As for my view on QM,  my hunch is it is currently like an anomalous epicycle that develops in the way it has  after  starting out from  the non-nested cube/subjective-objective initial condition.   My hunch is that the ~QM matters will become more clear to us as more explorations are developed beginning with different instances of NSD  as initial conditions. 

Here I disagree, to be franc. To me QM begins with Newton’s understanding that light is particles and Huygens understanding that light is a wave. Nobody understands, and the de Broglie just told us that this weird aspect of nature was not just about light, but about all matter. Then with Einstein locality and Everett we see that QM describes infinities of interfering computation, which confirms what should be obvious in and about the arithmetical reality, (when understanding that it is Turing complete).And when the physics is extracted from self-reference, we can use incompleteness to separate the quanta and qualia. 

[rf] Yes, there are many instances of nested structured~duality. 

For a rough example, consider starting with magnetic tetrahedron and rather quickly getting variable density multiple states differing in increments of one-half spin.  There are other structured-dualities to explore.  

If your intuition is well founded, I bet they will pulsated in the realm of the finitely describable things and the Turing emulable realm.

Not so much just a physical reality 'out there'. Yes, I can sling up an instance that has   a physical reality “out there”, but  I'm more of the old time religion where I believe in the elements and in solar-driven photosynthesis generating food packets and oxygen, some of which aerobic organisms ingest and digest and respire, in concert with our microbial partners.  So, a lot of nested structural coding in nested fields within nested fields.

OK. But the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields. Very simple equation determined crazily nested structures, like I illustrate with the Mandebrot set, which iterated a simple polynomials in the complex (rational) plane. Very simple, apparently not nested at all creature, like a square two polynomials, can give rise to a supernested structure like the chaotic Mandelbrot set; or here, the quadri-brot  with the iteration of f(z) = z^5 + c: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqkMu4zn34

[rf] Ok, but  "the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields" is true except for the units on the fields.  Yes, I suppose the sequenced protein-foldings just reduce to differing sounds as a function of our material of construction, etc..  -- we are called to name things, after all.    So far, though, I have trouble erasing the units and recognizing what's left.  

...except for experiencing and pondering upon the raining bluish-white light in the unified resonant one-ness.    But people can do that any time they want with the regular unsubstituted equipment.    

Maybe it is like your 'mechanism'. I can't tell what you mean by 'mechanism' so I likely cannot say more than I think there are some similarities. 

My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality. It appears in its indexical form already in the "King Milinda" greek-indian text, or in Chuang-Tseu and chinese philosophy, but in Occident, we attribute (its nth rebirth) to Descartes. It is the idea that we are (perhaps natural, perhaps physical) machines (we are invariant for the change of our elementary local constitution at some level, as biology illustrates). 

[rf] As in: Reality is mechanism?? 

The nuance is brought by the discovery of the universal machine, and its limitations, and the fact that she is aware, in some sense, of its limitations.

[rf] By "indexical form " does that point toward indexicals in linguistics or getting higher numbers by the indexed location of the digit in the linear array?

The first case. We can build program referring to themselves. The trick is to apply a duplicator to a duplicator. If Dx => f(xx), then DD => f(DD).

[rf] Simple in abstract math; not so much in  the carbon-water based life system.

Also, biology seems monogamously wedded to "carbon-water-based" stuff, riding on a common sp^3 hybridized ~magnetictetrahedral-like pattern.

On this planet, yes. Maybe it is important, but I am not sure. Anyway, as I said, that must be justified entirely. 

I'll try to read more about the examples you named. Still in need of a simple explanation/example of  universal machine.

OK. I will do that someday. 

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

[rf] My impression is that if you swap out my amagadala for a printed circuit board, maybe  there'd be improvements in my temperament, but probably ~I'd be different. Not the same self.   Plus there's some questions about hormonal secretions.    

OK. But if you don't introduce analog infinities of a very special type, it means that your substitution level might just take into account the hormonal secretion function and shape at some digital level of description. Mechanism is just the bet that some level of digital substitution exists. The consequence are still valid in the extreme case, like if your brain is the entire observable (or not) physical universe, at the quantum superstring level, with 10^35 decimals precision. 

[rf] What do you propose as material as the substitute?  Also, when you say "digital" are you intending 2^n? 

Could you do 6^n or 12^n?

Yes. You can use any Turing universal system. Digital means finite alphabet, decidable grammar, and “rich enough elementary behaviour rules”. The game of life of Conway is an example of simple universal system. All universal system can emulate any other universal system.

[rf] In the ~six states of an n2s2 within a cube,     is the equivalent of   

no, probably no, maybe no, maybe yes,  probably yes and yes.     Is that decideable?

Here you can see a very short video showing a game of life pattern emulating a register universal machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My8AsV7bA94

 

MY problem with boosting the abstract math prerequisites is the duration and failure rates are already excessive, just on the ~physical side of things.  That's ~why I favor analog math, since the physical intuition can develop via the tactile channel, you know, as ~God intended. 

Yes, I am entirely OK with you. Later you will see that the universal numbers "rich enough" (Gödel-Löbian) agree with you too. Somehow the third arithmetical hypostases (obtained by the Bp-&-p nuance of Gödel's provability predicate Bp, the logic S4Grz1) leads to analog math, and justify it for the first person point of view. 

[rf] I have the impression that your use of "first person", "third person" etc., is sort of like an anomaly or aberration of assuming a non-nested structure as fundamental.  It skews things.

I think that distinction is the key to solve the mind-body problem. It is exactly what 1500 years of institionalized religion (and its atheistic mirror) try to put under the rug, I would say. How could a 3p grey brain makes a person living the 1p experience of redness?

Kind Regards,

Bruno

[rf]  My hunch or leaning re: 1p/3p is that is a sloppy way to try to point at or include or reference an ill-defined model of consciousness in one's trial theory of a model of consciousness. Regarding finger-pointing at religions or spirituality,  one day I starting thinking that a more likely  thing, or a rarely considered alternative is that the present plight is really due to flaws in the scientific paradigm  and not as we love to blame, as that  blankety-blank God's fault. I mean, here we are 380 years into the initial approximation of  the scientific method and --Oops! -- we don't got no model of consciousness! 

Sounds like a flawed scientific paradigm problem to me.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLeMq%2BQj9XAw1DXPAt_Xi4s6pDM89G-UfKc1uQj77sY4nA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/D14B1F60-300B-41EE-9F26-D9013ADEECC9%40ulb.ac.be.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLfd-FR__QTwB4yGYy5-DWMuiCAtE%2BwMcw4MYxF5MJkAAA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/758C6F6D-04FC-4EC8-894B-4143F88FE00E%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Ralph,

On 10 Jan 2018, at 09:14, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""",  in ~my ~logic  can I revise or re-format that to: 

Reality is mechanism.    (bm)

Not at all. I have proved that if my consciousness can survive a digital brain or body transplant, then whatever Reality is, it is NOT a mechanism.

You seem to have not yet well understood that if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).

whereas I advocate:

Reality is nested structured~duality.   (rf)    ?

Which is expected when we assume Mechanism.

Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """,  I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me.  

You need only to study a bit more logic, to see that some of your conclusion makes sense with mechanism, and are even desirable in the sense that we might (if you are correct) derive the importance of the water molecules in life and consciousness.

I encounter my wall of fog essentially as soon as when trying to ~visualize ~why one would represent counting numbers as chains of calls to an incrementor function -- successors. I am still wishing for a picture or diagram or clear example that illuminates the advantage of such an initial set of associations on the front-end of math/symbolic logic.   It looks or feels like obfuscation to me.   Again, pardon my persistent ignorance.  

There are many equivalent theories. You can propose another theory, if it is Turing-complete (Turing universal) it will be enough, and nothing can be added. 

I likely misunderstood some of your axiom questions, but I ~think I may have a basic problem with assuming 0 (zero).

Is your problem about “assuming” or about “zero”?

That is, in math, yes, I get it,  If I have 3 apples and I eat them, then I have zero apples. 

OK. Good. That is the idea. 

However,  I had a (ralph) insight once that for fields, they really don't have or reach or recover from a value of zero, thus zero field strength (zero) doesn't ~exist.   "If anything" the ~field just disappears, dissipates, vanishes.   So I do sort of get that in the externalized abstract math and logic, zero exists and probabaly ALL that you write and theorize is completely valid in the rules of abstract math, but (according to me) it doesn't quite match up with the problems and challenges that we are actually nested within.  

You assume fields. Normally they need much more mathematical assumptions to be described. With mechanism, the fields, the 

Similarly, I think of vibrations or oscillations always between two or more states.   

Me too. That should not be a problem, unless you reify the states into “material” or “divine” state, which would blur the possible simpler explanation where the “matter illusion” and/or the “divine truth” would come from.

More below….

OK.

OK. I wish you are correct on this. But that is testable, in between the theories (if you can make it precise enough), and with Nature (the empirically observable).

As well,  I am saying that ~structure is fundamental, particularly  tetrahedral structure,   I don't know it that "computes" or turns up as a fundamental feature in the dominant physics model where QED  mates with the other forces.    I state it based on observation and a hunch -- it's how we are able to bobble along in the local variable mass density solar fusion flux field and survive.     I don't know if structure is fundamental in the dominant scientific paradigm. Is it?

Structure? Mathematicians would say that structures are everywhere. The interesting things are in the relation between the structures. Especially the so-called morphism, or homomorphism.

Now, this can lead to an infinite labyrinth, and we can lost ourself. So I prefer to work top down, and start more or less from the mind-body problem, using the computationalist hypothesis as a working tool.

The dominant scientific paradigm is still unaware that metaphysics and theology can be approached, at east according to *some* hypotheses, with the scientific method/attitude (which is modesty, no claim of truth, no ontological commitment, clear refutable theories (it is work demanding).

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

[rf]  The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,)

It looks many trucks, hoists and cranes to install at IBM their first 5 MegaBytes hard drive, and now, you can put million of these MG in your pockets. All applications are universal programmed Chips, so yes, the computers are physical implementations of Universal Machine, provably so if you accept the theses (proved equivalent) by Church, Kleene, Post, Turing, etc.

But then, after that,  in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality   I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So  our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine  modifies its own tapes and structures and actions. 

That is what the universal machine/number/word likes to do the most: to transform themselves, with respect to other probable universal number. 

The nesting can be related with dreams inside dreams, but the dreams obeys the law of numbers, and limit of numbers. From inside, the nesting is truly infinite.

  But in contrast to a math duplicator,  the cwb   can't just materialize an imaginary  oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running,  we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding.  

Only because you take for granted, perhaps, the idea that the fundamental reality is physical. 

I do not.

The physical is fundamental, but it is only the Clothes of God. The physical is, or should, only be a tool used by God to say “hello” to Itsef.

It is not the fundamentally “real” thing, which has admittedly slightly more “trivial”: the arithmetical reaiity, and, at some point, even only the semi-computable arithmetical reality.

But the key to understand is that such a correspondence should itself never been taken for granted, and digital mechanism is a type of religion: it acts some faith. At some point any theology takes the risk of blasphemy, directly or when misunderstood. Here, the mathematics of self-reference can be helpful.

When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another   entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another  byte or two of memory.   But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.

I doubt less 2 * 3 = 6 than the idea that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, or that F=GmM/r^2. I confess. 

With respect to the arithmetical reality, a “physical" memory is only needed to remain in the physical reality, that is the normal (Gaussian) computational histories.

'Near death', the question becomes more difficult, as there are infinities of histories, and a priori you survive on the closer consistent one. Arithmetic entails there is something like “near death experiences”, and they are evidences for some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. There are complex nesting there too. (Assuming Mechanism).

I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or  universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.

It raises the interesting subject of the possible physical implementation of universal relations in 3D space, with varieties of constraints.

Note that classical gravitation theory is Turing universal with three bodies? Quantum field theory is Turing universal with the vacuum, i.e. with 0 bodies (!).

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.

[rf] Can you explain or demonstrate why or how, this successor notion is really an advantage?   To me, writing and thinking 3 is better than tracking on  s(s(s(0))) or the third successor of zero, 

To me too. It is just a practical notation to define axiomatically the natural numbers. If you use the base two notation, the axioms will be more cumbersome, and the metamathematics (where we will study mathematically the theory and its relation with the arithmetical truth) will become unreadable. 

Also, it seems ~we have already  initiated the number line before associating  s(s(s(0))) with 3.   

It is a just a notation, for what we already understand, usually. 

The first axiom/question is:  do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?

Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?

The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).

[rf]  Can you give any possible example  or explanation of Mechanism, and are you saying this is like an unending instruction set?   -- NOT like my DNA, but maybe  like my DNA on epigenetic modifications?

Mechanism is the idea that our bodies are (natural) machine, which means they works through finite local interaction at some description level.

Then, accepting the Church-Turing thesis, it becomes a theorem that all computations are implemented by all computers, including in elementary arithmetic. 

Machines are finite objects, but they can’t avoid growing up and developing themselves through many histories. Then you have to take into account that the machine’s first person perspective is infinitely distributed on infinitely many computations, and “observably” so below their substitution level (which suggests that the substitution level is the quantum level, which is mainly an isolation notion, than a scale).

 

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

[rf] Like I wrote above,   I sort of get  what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic  but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc., 

OK. But for me, nothing is conceivably wilder than the arithmetical reality, up to the point of trying to explain how the apparent orders can emerge from the many-dreams realised in arithmetic.

You might confuse the mathematical theories and the mathematical reality. Since Gödel, we have good reason (even theorem assuming mechanism) to believe that the arithmetical reality is quite transcendent. 

And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely

The math expression does not fully express completely … the arithmetical reality. 

or wholly match up with all ~life transactions. 

That might be true or false, nobody know. But it is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. I push the logic until I see an internal or an external contradictions. 

So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. 

Hmm… That is applied to physics too, and economy, etc. 

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line,   I might be inclined to agree with you.    I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. 

~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is  focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality.     But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.

I look for an explanation of the origin of the physical laws, which does not put consciousness under the rug, as the average Aristotelian materialist do. 

Usually Mechanism is advocated by materialist, but I try to explain this does not work. Then it is easier to explain how numbers can dream, and how some dreams can develop into stable sharable physical realities, but with no need of ontological stuff.

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms. 

?   (I am saying that the axioms (mechanism) is confirmed. It makes no sense to say that a there is confirmed by having false axioms). 

You lost me here. We are not reasoning at the same level.

My hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat.

Not at all. The duplicator existence is a theorem derivable from the axiom I gave. You just miss Gödel’s astounding achievement of the arithmetization of metamathematics. You are not alone, despite tuns of book, this is largely ignored, but it changes a lot the possible metaphysics/theology available when assuming Mechanism.

I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that  what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding

I agree, but there could be a reason why. And the fact that we are emulate by a “machinery” does not make necessarily that “machinery” made of stuff, or being the most fundamental. 

With mechanism, it is very simple: ANY Turing universal machine is enough. The theology and the physics cannot depend on the choice of the ontological theory. Theology, which includes physics, becomes “machine-independent”, as the computer scientist says about laws about programs which does not depend on the chosen programming language or machine. 

and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.

If your theory doesn't have, yet have,  or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then   you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way. 

On the contrary, I am all for the testing. I predicted most quantum weirdness from the assumption of mechanism, but it took me a lot of years to get the quantum logics from pure math, and the test confirms all of them. As they are different, surely we can progress.

Then, my point illustrates that the alternative “materialism” is also tested, but get no confirmation. If you invoke a metaphysical reality, like a primitively material universe, it is up to you to present evidence. All what I show is that weak materialism (the belief in primary matter) and Mechanism, (the belief that consciousness is invariant for the digital local transplant) are not compatible (contrary to what atheist materialist often defend).

Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes    in a somewhat disruptive manner.

?

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

[rf] Don't see why - what?   

The 19th century did have a reductionist conception of machine. Since Gödel and Turing, we know that the universal machine are terrible unknown. I did not see why you said the sentence above, and I was suggesting you might use a reductionist conception of machines.

Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.

[rf] So what does it mean in your theory if we shut off/revise your oxygen supply and you lose consciousness and/or can't  write logically correct statements, if all of that is substitutable with digital mechanism? 

If you limit my supply of oxygen I will die relatively to you. From my first person perspective I will survive in the computations where you don’t do that, or in any other consistent history close (in some sense related to the logic of self-reference).

It is the frightening aspect of mechanism: we can’t die. But theoretical computer science (intensional number theory) suggests the existence of jumps, if not, like I say above, much more sophisticated bardo.To leave the cycle of death and rebirth is not easy.

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers

Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.

--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. 

In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.

 The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? 

[rf] Are you saying you don't see why or what life and living has to do with thinking math logic thoughts?

I mean I keep my mind open to the idea that our physical universal might have life form based on different constituents and set of laws, and doubly so with mechanism, where we are at light years to get something like our three dimensional or 24 dimensional physical theories. But physics, as ontological science, is refuted, from the mechanist perspective. But physics has not been invented for doing metaphysics, so that is rather normal.

 

The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. 

[rf]  As above,  in math you can just make things appear. In life, one is inside a more deeply nested flow. 

In arithmetic, physical things can be explained as being apparently appearing. If not, you might be begging the question, and committing yourself ontologically. Better not to do that if we do metaphysics scientifically, to get the empirical tests.

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

[rf] I'd say you need the right structure. 

Mechanism is the non constructive bet that such a right structure exists, is finitely describable relatively to some “physical” universal numbers (computer). No machine can prove that such a level exists, but we can be lucky by doing the right bet (at that level or below).

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. 

Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. 

 I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? 

Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).

 How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

[rf] I'm still not getting it.    Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix”? 

It is almost exactly that: except that we are in infinitely many Matrices at once. Then our consciousness will differentiate once the matrices differentiates on different inputs or oracle (possibly non computable inputs on which the arithmetical reality dovetails).

  I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.

There vertical and horizontal nesting. Universal number mimicking universal numbers mimicking universal numbers etc. But with the self-reference you have universal numbers mimicking themselves (cf the video showing the game of life emulating the game of life), and circular “nestings”. 

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.

Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.

I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.

[rf] Before I would blame my high school geometry teacher for me not tracking on proofs, I'd dial back to hitting my head on a rock when I was ten-ish, or simply just not having that sort of aptitude.  Although I think of myself as a tactile learner,  basically if I can't ~picture or sketch a diagram or something ~visular or imaginativeI probably will not understand it or have "a way in".    It's my lack.     

Diagrams are very good, and bad teachers are very bad. There are also personal affinities, but everyone can verify a proof, and learn to find them. Some people are slower, but usually the slow one go farer and deeper. In mathematics, competence and intelligence are often acting against each other, and some (bad) teacher kill the intelligence to favour some competences. 

Second, I am assuming a nested structured~duality. 

At some point, I will ask you an axiomatic definition, but only if you use your structure as an argument against computationalism or its consequences, helping them to see where it break down. yet, you do seem to assume enough of QM (to get the oxygen and the sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns, ...), so that's quite natural for me, as QM is what seem to obtained in the introspective number discourse (more on this plausibly later, but you can look at my papers).

[rf] Promise not to laugh on the NSD axiomatic expression?  

     Reality is nested structured~duality.   (1)

It's axiomatic definition or re-definition of reality.

Okay, you can laugh,

Thanks! Laughing on some theory is always good. Laughing at some person is always bad ...

but that is how it seems to me.

But I like the idea. What is laughable, by a stubborn logician, say, is the qualification of axiomatic. Of course I use that term in a rather strict sense.

Let me give you the criteria for an axiomatic definition (in applied logic): you should be allowed to change all the names. So, axiomatically you are just saying that A is B.

What you are saying is of course much more than that, and it assumes some “Reality” (a complex concept in metaphysics), and then it assumes what you call “nested structured-duality”, and some link between. To communicate it to scientists (very rare in metaphysic, and you have the bad luck to met one) you need to either build an axiomatisation of your notion of nested-structure duality, or represent it is a known theory which has such an axiomatic presentation, and this is what I suppose you do, with the “usual quantum mechanic” (which is axiomatizable).

Then with life and the quantum orbital, we might share an intuition of the importance of the numbers 3 and 4.

(Sometimes I think that the whole Creation is a dream of the divisor of 24, but that feelings comes from my reading of Ramanujan. 24 was his favourite numbers, and it is indeed a very remarkable strange number).

Reality is what I search.

[rf] From my view you are saying something like "reality is mechanism”,

I insist that my hypothesis is that “I” am a mechanism. (That is I survive with a machine as a body). Then I can show that this entails that both consciousness and matter are not mechanism. This comes from the first person indeterminacy: the act that if we are digital machine we are duplicable (at some right level of description), and we are indeterminate on all the computations going through our current local relative state. You need to study the seven steps of the “Universal Dovetailer Argument”, like in the sane04 paper. We are randomly selected on all equivalent computations (in arithmetic). 

which, to me is even less well defined than "reality is nested structured~duality".    I expect within 4 to 6 months once you tried the substitution and statement on you would agree, or, as is the way structural coding works, the expression would "grow on you" -- would come to make sense because you would observe many, many  instances and no exceptions.   

Any and every part or sub-part, trial theory, model or artifact is an instance of nested structured~duality. 

But keep in mind that after Gödel 1931, we know that arithmetic is very complex, not amenable to any complete theory. It is essentially incomplete able. That comes mainly from the presence of the universal numbers, which form a sort of Indra Net, as each universal machine reflects all the others, and the structure of all computations is very complex (in the third person picture), and then it is structured differently according to the points of view that the machine can adopt. It is hard for me to not expect very deep nesting, and I got, BTW, at least (8*7)/2 dualities structuring the arithmetical “Mindscape”. 

[rf] That sort of why I say nested structured~duality   is a tenet. 

 Once you know that principle you understand reality; you have the common denominator for all the ~physical and  the ~mental artifacts and aspects, including all trial theories and paradigms, and you roughly track on your own nested structural coding.

OK. But you need to explain why they take the appearance they take, I mean a lot of question remains.

[rf]  How things are different? How things are the same?    The BIG pattern recognition hit, for me, was observing  how  the huge fraction of our selves and our surroundings  fits in with the ~tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized patterns -- just a handful, akin to the five states of the ~inner magnetic tetrahedron.   It's like a different sort of elegant mystery -- all water, all methane and its derivatives, all ammonia and amines, all silicates as in the crusts of terrestrial planets, compression patterns in solar fusion...  

The question is: how to evaluate if that structure is accidental/contingent or necessary/lawful. Only by comparing the physics in “our head” (in the universal machine’s head) with the inferred physics from the actual observations can provide an answer.

As for my view on QM,  my hunch is it is currently like an anomalous epicycle that develops in the way it has  after  starting out from  the non-nested cube/subjective-objective initial condition.   My hunch is that the ~QM matters will become more clear to us as more explorations are developed beginning with different instances of NSD  as initial conditions. 

Here I disagree, to be franc. To me QM begins with Newton’s understanding that light is particles and Huygens understanding that light is a wave. Nobody understands, and the de Broglie just told us that this weird aspect of nature was not just about light, but about all matter. Then with Einstein locality and Everett we see that QM describes infinities of interfering computation, which confirms what should be obvious in and about the arithmetical reality, (when understanding that it is Turing complete).And when the physics is extracted from self-reference, we can use incompleteness to separate the quanta and qualia. 

[rf] Yes, there are many instances of nested structured~duality. 

For a rough example, consider starting with magnetic tetrahedron and rather quickly getting variable density multiple states differing in increments of one-half spin.  There are other structured-dualities to explore.  

If your intuition is well founded, I bet they will pulsated in the realm of the finitely describable things and the Turing emulable realm.

Not so much just a physical reality 'out there'. Yes, I can sling up an instance that has   a physical reality “out there”, but  I'm more of the old time religion where I believe in the elements and in solar-driven photosynthesis generating food packets and oxygen, some of which aerobic organisms ingest and digest and respire, in concert with our microbial partners.  So, a lot of nested structural coding in nested fields within nested fields.

OK. But the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields. Very simple equation determined crazily nested structures, like I illustrate with the Mandebrot set, which iterated a simple polynomials in the complex (rational) plane. Very simple, apparently not nested at all creature, like a square two polynomials, can give rise to a supernested structure like the chaotic Mandelbrot set; or here, the quadri-brot  with the iteration of f(z) = z^5 + c: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqkMu4zn34

[rf] Ok, but  "the number reality is already nested fields within nested fields" is true except for the units on the fields.  Yes, I suppose the sequenced protein-foldings just reduce to differing sounds as a function of our material of construction, etc..  -- we are called to name things, after all.    So far, though, I have trouble erasing the units and recognizing what's left.  

...except for experiencing and pondering upon the raining bluish-white light in the unified resonant one-ness.    But people can do that any time they want with the regular unsubstituted equipment.    

Maybe it is like your 'mechanism'. I can't tell what you mean by 'mechanism' so I likely cannot say more than I think there are some similarities. 

My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality. It appears in its indexical form already in the "King Milinda" greek-indian text, or in Chuang-Tseu and chinese philosophy, but in Occident, we attribute (its nth rebirth) to Descartes. It is the idea that we are (perhaps natural, perhaps physical) machines (we are invariant for the change of our elementary local constitution at some level, as biology illustrates). 

[rf] As in: Reality is mechanism?? 

Whatever Reality is, it cannot be a Mechanism, if we are supported by digital machines. Due to the first person indeterminacy on all computations, the universal machine are indetermined on all details non relevant for their state. If your conscious state does not depend on which slit an electron has to pass, then from your point of view, it has to be like the electron is going through with slits. The quantum indeterminacy becomes a particular case of the mechanist first person indeterminacy on all computations in arithmetic. Everett’s “parallel world” are just the computations in arithmetic (or in any universal machinery).

The nuance is brought by the discovery of the universal machine, and its limitations, and the fact that she is aware, in some sense, of its limitations.

[rf] By "indexical form " does that point toward indexicals in linguistics or getting higher numbers by the indexed location of the digit in the linear array?

The first case. We can build program referring to themselves. The trick is to apply a duplicator to a duplicator. If Dx => f(xx), then DD => f(DD).

[rf] Simple in abstract math; not so much in  the carbon-water based life system.

Von Neumann would agree with you. He computed the probability that a carbon based duplicators appears, and found that it is very small. I am not entirely sure, but this would makes us relatively rare (even if multiplied by a continuum locally). 

If that is correct, t means that the Alien life will be very rare. I am not sure, but that is possible. But with mechanism, this applies to the effective terrestrial level, probably not in “Heaven" ...

Also, biology seems monogamously wedded to "carbon-water-based" stuff, riding on a common sp^3 hybridized ~magnetictetrahedral-like pattern.

On this planet, yes. Maybe it is important, but I am not sure. Anyway, as I said, that must be justified entirely. 

I'll try to read more about the examples you named. Still in need of a simple explanation/example of  universal machine.

OK. I will do that someday. 

Unfortunately, this requires some knowledge in mathematical logic, and notably the understanding that the notion of computation has a priori nothing to do with the physical science. I can define “digital machine” and “computation” using only very primitive mathematical notions which do not rely on any assumption in physics, nor in metaphysics. Then I show that if Mechanism is correct (that is we can survive with a digital brain/body, say) then, eventually, the whole physical reality, with both quanta and qualia, is explained by some sort of persistent hallucination shared by all universal numbers. This might explain the origin of consciousness, time, space, energy, and its quantum aspect, from very elementary ideas are used in most of science. More comment below.

[rf] My impression is that if you swap out my amagadala for a printed circuit board, maybe  there'd be improvements in my temperament, but probably ~I'd be different. Not the same self.   Plus there's some questions about hormonal secretions.    

OK. But if you don't introduce analog infinities of a very special type, it means that your substitution level might just take into account the hormonal secretion function and shape at some digital level of description. Mechanism is just the bet that some level of digital substitution exists. The consequence are still valid in the extreme case, like if your brain is the entire observable (or not) physical universe, at the quantum superstring level, with 10^35 decimals precision. 

[rf] What do you propose as material as the substitute?  Also, when you say "digital" are you intending 2^n? 

Could you do 6^n or 12^n?

Yes. You can use any Turing universal system. Digital means finite alphabet, decidable grammar, and “rich enough elementary behaviour rules”. The game of life of Conway is an example of simple universal system. All universal system can emulate any other universal system.

[rf] In the ~six states of an n2s2 within a cube,     is the equivalent of   

no, probably no, maybe no, maybe yes,  probably yes and yes.     Is that decideable?

Perhaps. We would need a proof of the Turing universality of you structure, and some evidence our minds supervene on it.

Here you can see a very short video showing a game of life pattern emulating a register universal machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My8AsV7bA94

 

MY problem with boosting the abstract math prerequisites is the duration and failure rates are already excessive, just on the ~physical side of things.  That's ~why I favor analog math, since the physical intuition can develop via the tactile channel, you know, as ~God intended. 

Yes, I am entirely OK with you. Later you will see that the universal numbers "rich enough" (Gödel-Löbian) agree with you too. Somehow the third arithmetical hypostases (obtained by the Bp-&-p nuance of Gödel's provability predicate Bp, the logic S4Grz1) leads to analog math, and justify it for the first person point of view. 

[rf] I have the impression that your use of "first person", "third person" etc., is sort of like an anomaly or aberration of assuming a non-nested structure as fundamental.  It skews things.

I think that distinction is the key to solve the mind-body problem. It is exactly what 1500 years of institionalized religion (and its atheistic mirror) try to put under the rug, I would say. How could a 3p grey brain makes a person living the 1p experience of redness?

Kind Regards,

Bruno

[rf]  My hunch or leaning re: 1p/3p is that is a sloppy way to try to point at or include or reference an ill-defined model of consciousness in one's trial theory of a model of consciousness. Regarding finger-pointing at religions or spirituality,  one day I starting thinking that a more likely  thing, or a rarely considered alternative is that the present plight is really due to flaws in the scientific paradigm  and not as we love to blame, as that  blankety-blank God's fault. I mean, here we are 380 years into the initial approximation of  the scientific method and --Oops! -- we don't got no model of consciousness! 

When I was a young student, the term “consciousness” was a taboo word. I think that in occident, science has started with Pythagorus (-500) (including the serious theology … and also already its misuses and abuses) and has stopped with Damascius (+ 500). We are just in the Middle-Age. The Enlightenment Period has recovered the scientific attitude in all domains, except the fundamental one: theology, and the human science. Theology needs to come back at the academy of science, where we practice modesty through refutable theories. 

Sounds like a flawed scientific paradigm problem to me.

I would say that the flaw comes from making the 1p into an epiphenomenon when not putting it straight away under the rug. I think that Aristotle has committed a giant step backward. He did not understand Plato, and took granted the ontology of a physical universe. That has led us to variate form of materialism, which might be flawed or not, but we have to test this, and the incompatibility between Mechanism and Materialism leads us to such tests (and at first sight it favour mechanism on materialism).

Kind regards,

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcQy_-PwsaUc3GSxH4OwbDG-wYXrF9nw8rpiupMf3u1vw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Dear Bruno,

There is quite a bit of uncertainty re what happens when we die, huh? And about spiritual matters and the undecidability wrt items of faith. I guess or have read that that is why they are issues and items of faith -- because there is no rationalizing or proof or justifications.  It's part of the exquisite mystery. Such are matters of faith.  A brief moment of NDE in1977 once partly convinced me of the peace and resonance of it~hopefully, when the time comes. But there is still no proof and sometimes anxiety grows. Still  faith remains the size of  a mustard seed.  

A confession I can make is I may be or am or have been said to be woefully lacking in deducing  and inferring. So if some of your statements and ambiguous terminology presenting proving (or is it disproving) Mechanism/Materialism IF your consciousness could survive "digital mechanism" substitution.... relies on some unstated deduction or inference, chances are that is part of why  I am missing the point of your expression.  It's my lack. If you can be more clear about the high points and problem you aim  to solve, besides a "Matrix" sequel screenplay, I would appreciate it.  Still, it's my lack and we DO reason differently.

Some other points below...

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 10 Jan 2018, at 09:14, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""",  in ~my ~logic  can I revise or re-format that to: 

Reality is mechanism.    (bm)

Not at all. I have proved that if my consciousness can survive a digital brain or body transplant, then whatever Reality is, it is NOT a mechanism.

You seem to have not yet well understood that if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).

[rf] I sort of don't see what the math has to do with it.  Or,  if I opt for me doing some type of intuitive-ish logic, or in my case like a deeply nested ~pattern-biochemical, fields within fields energy-structure, carbon-water-based structural coding  balancing act, whereas you are really masterful at the more standard rationalistic mathematical logic,  then we do certainly ~reason differently, if I can even call what ~my structural coding is as  "reasoning".  And I can probably see your point that you think your approach is superior along the criteria that you and your group appreciate.  

But, back to my rather autistic/engineer-like   aim though, a goal I have been seeking is to like, for instance, not to find ALL  or the BEST, say, ~equations of quantum gravity, or a working trial theory of consciousness, but to scribble out an initial, approximate instance that delivers enough physical intuition to spark the new awareness. This has led me into the analog math symbols and expressions to get the synchrony and the *feel*, and to beginning with the tetrahedral structure (rather than the xyz-cube, used, say, in Hamiltonians and elsewhere), because that pattern is (1) a different basis than the cube, and (2) rather ubiquitous within relevant atomic-molecular levels of our ontology.  

So, yes, I am doing a rather crude approximation of a paradigm shift as I seek a paradigm shift, and, I am encouraged by the information compression and physical intuition delivered by the initial approximation -- just by picking a different specific structure and  ~duality.

In our on-going discussion here,  perhaps because I point at our organic chemistry -- carbon-water-based structural coding, and "magnetic tetrahedra" as quick and dirty analog math symbols of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds and I describe/visualize having a "free" internal representation of surroundings structurally coding  in a ~6^n manner  in the10^20 per second water molecules forming within our aerobic respiration reaction sites (within neurons), that those references put me in the category of "materialist", or advocating that ~we are "machines" or "cwb machines". Perhaps that is an accurate categorization although, considering reality as nested structured~duality,  as nested fields within nested fields, I often think I am more focused on patterns than on materials.  Referencing atoms' names refer to patterns and they are a bit like symbols, like the number-words.  I suspect though that getting an internal representation in the cwb structural coding, though, which is like developing a structure-related memory  back at the start of aerobic respiration and prior to development of neural networks is less panpsychist or cosmic consciousness-like than many might prefer.  Yes, it's like a small, local, provincial trial theory maybe only relevant for types of solar systems like ours whose suns make carbon, etc.

Anyway,   the notion of machine, and I think mechanism, as either favorable, or proveable or decidable, etc., MAY be a paradigm-bound quibble relating to the storyline one wants to present -- that is, one's favorite  instance of --Yes, you guessed it!-- nested structured~duality.    

Bruno, I am still not clear on if you use Turing universal machines to prove or disprove mechanism, but when I was watching videos on UTM's, it looks to me like they are also a mechanism (read, write, move, etc.). Is that a problem or a feature in your proofs?

Where you write: """ ...if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).""",   I get the impression you are forgetting your pre-natal and subsequent developments where prior to you making any predictions, you had some experiences that, let's say, structurally coded into some types of memories.  So, when we get around to "predicting", we're already initialized  -- conditioned or have a hunch or reduced set of possibilities to flounder about. So, those  "infinitely many computations" are likely a feature of your abstract math model.

In the "cwb organism" (which is likely a better name than cwb machine)    the initial structural coding for an experience is ~automatic. It just happens.  The experience just WRITES the ~6^n pattern. (Or, I suppose you can consider the WRITE at some other level or at multiple levels.) Anyway, the reference is ~given.   The system "writes" it.

whereas I advocate:

Reality is nested structured~duality.   (rf)    ?

Which is expected when we assume Mechanism.

[rf] Is this a retro-prediction on your part? 

Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """,  I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me.  

You need only to study a bit more logic, to see that some of your conclusion makes sense with mechanism, and are even desirable in the sense that we might (if you are correct) derive the importance of the water molecules in life and consciousness.

[rf] I get the impression that I am suggesting structure is fundamental, or adding structure with energy as fundamentals. That *feels* to me like it is ~below or in support of "mechanism" and "organism" (and all the other instances of NSD). Even in your UTM, you have left-right structure. 

I encounter my wall of fog essentially as soon as when trying to ~visualize ~why one would represent counting numbers as chains of calls to an incrementor function -- successors. I am still wishing for a picture or diagram or clear example that illuminates the advantage of such an initial set of associations on the front-end of math/symbolic logic.   It looks or feels like obfuscation to me.   Again, pardon my persistent ignorance.  

There are many equivalent theories. You can propose another theory, if it is Turing-complete (Turing universal) it will be enough, and nothing can be added. 

I likely misunderstood some of your axiom questions, but I ~think I may have a basic problem with assuming 0 (zero).

Is your problem about “assuming” or about “zero”?

[rf] When I ponder on unity and eternal then my problem is with "zero".    Like I said, for the math exercise, okay, assuming zero as the balance point or for accounting makes sense or has utility. As for logic, no doubt it's meaningful. I guess I would question the cross-system applicability to all aspects of ~our kind.

Because of some of my meditations on "eternal"  I have also grown skeptical about "in the beginning", or "empty space". So, yes, my problem is with "zero". 

Does that block me from learning logic?

That is, in math, yes, I get it,  If I have 3 apples and I eat them, then I have zero apples. 

OK. Good. That is the idea. 

However,  I had a (ralph) insight once that for fields, they really don't have or reach or recover from a value of zero, thus zero field strength (zero) doesn't ~exist.   "If anything" the ~field just disappears, dissipates, vanishes.   So I do sort of get that in the externalized abstract math and logic, zero exists and probabaly ALL that you write and theorize is completely valid in the rules of abstract math, but (according to me) it doesn't quite match up with the problems and challenges that we are actually nested within.  

You assume fields. Normally they need much more mathematical assumptions to be described. With mechanism, the fields, the 

Similarly, I think of vibrations or oscillations always between two or more states.   

Me too. That should not be a problem, unless you reify the states into “material” or “divine” state, which would blur the possible simpler explanation where the “matter illusion” and/or the “divine truth” would come from.

[rf] Do you see math and logic as closer to the "divine truth"?   Just asking.

[rf] I am wondering if  your computationalist tool box is initialized and predominantly xyz-cubic?   If you notice, I start with the query on the common denominator of ~mental and ~physical and, due to the empirical evidence, switch to tetrahedral structure due to the pattern recognition hit. 

The dominant scientific paradigm is still unaware that metaphysics and theology can be approached, at east according to *some* hypotheses, with the scientific method/attitude (which is modesty, no claim of truth, no ontological commitment, clear refutable theories (it is work demanding).

[rf] My approach  is less sophisticated. After pounding the cubic horse for ~400 years, why not explore  a different structural basis and see what relationships turn up?

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

[rf]  The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,)

It looks many trucks, hoists and cranes to install at IBM their first 5 MegaBytes hard drive, and now, you can put million of these MG in your pockets. All applications are universal programmed Chips, so yes, the computers are physical implementations of Universal Machine, provably so if you accept the theses (proved equivalent) by Church, Kleene, Post, Turing, etc.

But then, after that,  in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality   I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So  our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine  modifies its own tapes and structures and actions. 

That is what the universal machine/number/word likes to do the most: to transform themselves, with respect to other probable universal number. 

The nesting can be related with dreams inside dreams, but the dreams obeys the law of numbers, and limit of numbers. From inside, the nesting is truly infinite.

  But in contrast to a math duplicator,  the cwb   can't just materialize an imaginary  oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running,  we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding.  

Only because you take for granted, perhaps, the idea that the fundamental reality is physical. 

I do not.

[rf] Is it true the remainder of your statement here is: "I consider the fundamental  reality is mathematical."? 

The physical is fundamental, but it is only the Clothes of God. The physical is, or should, only be a tool used by God to say “hello” to Itsef.

It is not the fundamentally “real” thing, which has admittedly slightly more “trivial”: the arithmetical reaiity, and, at some point, even only the semi-computable arithmetical reality.

But the key to understand is that such a correspondence should itself never been taken for granted, and digital mechanism is a type of religion: it acts some faith. At some point any theology takes the risk of blasphemy, directly or when misunderstood. Here, the mathematics of self-reference can be helpful.

[rf]  Again, try to notice that what I am saying is reality is nested structured~duality. This nested structured~duality  is the common denominator, the fundamental tenet supporting  ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts.   You seem to want to use number-words; I lean toward using atom-molecular-pattern words. Both say, "Hi, God. How are you?". Don't they?

~My storyline just dips down into re-engineering the scientific paradigm to align a bit better with observed natural pattern -- switching from cube to tetrahedral basis; initializing with a different duality; adding nested structure as fundamental.   

What changes are you proposing?   

When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another   entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another  byte or two of memory.   But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.

I doubt less 2 * 3 = 6 than the idea that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, or that F=GmM/r^2. I confess. 

[rf] I remember reading and copying and practicing the multiplication tables, in 3rd and 4th grade, and committing those patterns to memory, too. I'd agree, I doubt them less, as so far, remember them more than the other patterns.

With respect to the arithmetical reality, a “physical" memory is only needed to remain in the physical reality, that is the normal (Gaussian) computational histories.

[rf] Do you ever still count on your fingers? 

'Near death', the question becomes more difficult, as there are infinities of histories, and a priori you survive on the closer consistent one. Arithmetic entails there is something like “near death experiences”, and they are evidences for some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. There are complex nesting there too. (Assuming Mechanism).

[rf] My brief experience, FWIW, which could also have been a passing fancy, is more so like a growing, peaceful  resonance, like tending toward a strong attractor. Sure, the anxieties seem to prompt a bunch of recalculations, but surrendering, the path is already formed. One only need to follow.  Surrendering is sometimes difficult.

I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or  universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.

It raises the interesting subject of the possible physical implementation of universal relations in 3D space, with varieties of constraints.

[rf] Where or how do you come up with this notion of 3D space?  Do you mean distance in three orthogonal directions? What you reach out at when you extend your arms and spin around?   Do you believe in empty space as a fundamental? 

In the 6^n ordered water structural coding that I am pointing at the sybmols are provided "for free" as a sidebar of the respiration/energy reaction, but they don't get "written" as one of the ~six symbols by surrounding vibrations except as the molecule forms and perhaps enters into a microtubular channel. Then the next, and the next.   

Note that classical gravitation theory is Turing universal with three bodies? Quantum field theory is Turing universal with the vacuum, i.e. with 0 bodies (!).

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.

[rf] Can you explain or demonstrate why or how, this successor notion is really an advantage?   To me, writing and thinking 3 is better than tracking on  s(s(s(0))) or the third successor of zero, 

To me too. It is just a practical notation to define axiomatically the natural numbers. If you use the base two notation, the axioms will be more cumbersome, and the metamathematics (where we will study mathematically the theory and its relation with the arithmetical truth) will become unreadable. 

[rf] That sounds like either an effective psychological defense mechanism or a limiting communication tool.. 

Also, it seems ~we have already  initiated the number line before associating  s(s(s(0))) with 3.   

It is a just a notation, for what we already understand, usually. 

The first axiom/question is:  do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?

Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?

The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).

[rf]  Can you give any possible example  or explanation of Mechanism, and are you saying this is like an unending instruction set?   -- NOT like my DNA, but maybe  like my DNA on epigenetic modifications?

Mechanism is the idea that our bodies are (natural) machine, which means they works through finite local interaction at some description level.

[rf] I don't think this mechanism/machine holds for carbon-water-based organisms like us emersed  within carbon- water - nitrogen- cycles, ecological networks and food chains, etc..

Then, accepting the Church-Turing thesis, it becomes a theorem that all computations are implemented by all computers, including in elementary arithmetic. 

Machines are finite objects, but they can’t avoid growing up and developing themselves through many histories. Then you have to take into account that the machine’s first person perspective is infinitely distributed on infinitely many computations, and “observably” so below their substitution level (which suggests that the substitution level is the quantum level, which is mainly an isolation notion, than a scale).

[rf] So, what's it mean that we are not such finite machines? 

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

[rf] Like I wrote above,   I sort of get  what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic  but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc., 

OK. But for me, nothing is conceivably wilder than the arithmetical reality, up to the point of trying to explain how the apparent orders can emerge from the many-dreams realised in arithmetic.

[rf] For that, you probably need to switch over to a different symbol set.

 

You might confuse the mathematical theories and the mathematical reality. Since Gödel, we have good reason (even theorem assuming mechanism) to believe that the arithmetical reality is quite transcendent. 

[rf] There you go relying upon the unacknowledged fundamental nested structure again -- transcendent.

And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely

The math expression does not fully express completely … the arithmetical reality. 

or wholly match up with all ~life transactions. 

That might be true or false, nobody know. But it is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. I push the logic until I see an internal or an external contradictions. 

So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. 

Hmm… That is applied to physics too, and economy, etc. 

[rf] ?? 

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line,   I might be inclined to agree with you.    I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. 

~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is  focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality.     But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.

I look for an explanation of the origin of the physical laws, which does not put consciousness under the rug, as the average Aristotelian materialist do. 

Usually Mechanism is advocated by materialist, but I try to explain this does not work. Then it is easier to explain how numbers can dream, and how some dreams can develop into stable sharable physical realities, but with no need of ontological stuff.

[rf]  So, is that all predicated on you and I being carbon-water-based organisms able to generate and modify our own look-up tables and adaptive action tapes as something that cannot or should not be happening?  Or have you never consider it or had it put in front of you?

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms. 

?   (I am saying that the axioms (mechanism) is confirmed. It makes no sense to say that a there is confirmed by having false axioms). 

You lost me here. We are not reasoning at the same level.

[rf] Where you say: """but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above""",   I look at the situation and suggest, sort of, "Your powers are weak old man" (from Star Wars...), meaning that   developing the mathematical/logical symbolic expression gets you the kinds of things it does, but it apparently cannot or does not or has not yet given a strong enough expression so ~you can grasp what is going on.  From my perspective that would take elevating nested structure and aiming closer to replicate or emulate all of the kinds of nested structural coding that we have going on in and around our atomic-molecular ontology.  

But all of those things don't make any sense within ~your numbers-logic rules since any mention of "atom" is likely only associable with materialism. 

Another way to consider it is, to me, it seems  you are the one who also assumes that math/logic can or does model or can give accurate insights into human ~consciousness and/or ~self -- however it is said.  Even though we are unity-based beings, your logic is zero-based and thus a little be out of kilter. Not quite applicable to our ~systems. I suggest this is like trying to describe fire in terms of its smoke -- like thinking backwards.   When one gets down to having, let's say, a structurally coded internal representation of surroundings (with links to expression) then that is the system actually generating the externalized math/logic and physical law contents and expressions.    

My hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat.

Not at all. The duplicator existence is a theorem derivable from the axiom I gave. You just miss Gödel’s astounding achievement of the arithmetization of metamathematics. You are not alone, despite tuns of book, this is largely ignored, but it changes a lot the possible metaphysics/theology available when assuming Mechanism.

I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that  what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding

I agree, but there could be a reason why. And the fact that we are emulate by a “machinery” does not make necessarily that “machinery” made of stuff, or being the most fundamental. 

With mechanism, it is very simple: ANY Turing universal machine is enough. The theology and the physics cannot depend on the choice of the ontological theory. Theology, which includes physics, becomes “machine-independent”, as the computer scientist says about laws about programs which does not depend on the chosen programming language or machine. 

[rf] Yes, okay, different instances of nested structured~duality.  But all of us here in the local region are running the carbon-water-based organism structural coding.  Again, I suggest it's more to do with specific structure (structured~duality)  than with mechanism.

and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.

If your theory doesn't have, yet have,  or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then   you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way. 

On the contrary, I am all for the testing. I predicted most quantum weirdness from the assumption of mechanism, but it took me a lot of years to get the quantum logics from pure math, and the test confirms all of them. As they are different, surely we can progress.

[rf] Not to subtract from your accomplishments, but I am still curious about how I can start with five water to align four rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron and get physical intuition on variable density multiple states. And then get more states by nesting structures -- without using much if any abstract math.

Then, my point illustrates that the alternative “materialism” is also tested, but get no confirmation. If you invoke a metaphysical reality, like a primitively material universe, it is up to you to present evidence. All what I show is that weak materialism (the belief in primary matter) and Mechanism, (the belief that consciousness is invariant for the digital local transplant) are not compatible (contrary to what atheist materialist often defend).

[rf]  Can you clarify or spread that out a bit more? That's still too complicated a statement for me to follow.   From my perspective I still say that you have still done all of what you say relying upon and using the carbon-water-basis ~tetrahedral-like structural coding.  

Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes    in a somewhat disruptive manner.

?

[rf] Once you acquire even an approximate, ~working  "internal model of consciousness", abstract math symbols and expressions  and logic structures become secondary devices. 

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

[rf] Don't see why - what?   

The 19th century did have a reductionist conception of machine. Since Gödel and Turing, we know that the universal machine are terrible unknown. I did not see why you said the sentence above, and I was suggesting you might use a reductionist conception of machines.

[rf] My impression is I am not following that approach. I've taken a different path through the woods.   I ~feel more like I am just taking the givens, choosing a different nested structured~duality  and  showing how to get a structured  internal representation of surroundings nested within our ontology. 

I may make reference to "machine", but I do more mean "organism" and one that is quite smeared out within our surroundings.   So, yes, reduced down to organic chemistry and a handful of sp^3 hybridized ~tetrahedral-like patterns, but also smeared out amid several nested fields within nested fields.

Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.

[rf] So what does it mean in your theory if we shut off/revise your oxygen supply and you lose consciousness and/or can't  write logically correct statements, if all of that is substitutable with digital mechanism? 

If you limit my supply of oxygen I will die relatively to you. From my first person perspective I will survive in the computations where you don’t do that, or in any other consistent history close (in some sense related to the logic of self-reference).

It is the frightening aspect of mechanism: we can’t die. But theoretical computer science (intensional number theory) suggests the existence of jumps, if not, like I say above, much more sophisticated bardo.To leave the cycle of death and rebirth is not easy.

[rf] I agree with your last statement but not from the math analysis. Moreso from reading a bit about and my own  small, different varieties of religious experiences.   I can ~imagine/~remember what it is/could be like.   Sort of like waking up from anesthesia  only it wasn't just anesthesia -- having missed the funeral in the prior world and taking up in the ~same but slightly different  Everette-many-worlds place.   

If you can emulate or discover  that in math, that is quite an accomplishment.

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers

Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.

--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. 

In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.

 The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? 

[rf] Are you saying you don't see why or what life and living has to do with thinking math logic thoughts?

I mean I keep my mind open to the idea that our physical universal might have life form based on different constituents and set of laws, and doubly so with mechanism, where we are at light years to get something like our three dimensional or 24 dimensional physical theories. But physics, as ontological science, is refuted, from the mechanist perspective. But physics has not been invented for doing metaphysics, so that is rather normal.

 

The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. 

[rf]  As above,  in math you can just make things appear. In life, one is inside a more deeply nested flow. 

In arithmetic, physical things can be explained as being apparently appearing. If not, you might be begging the question, and committing yourself ontologically. Better not to do that if we do metaphysics scientifically, to get the empirical tests.

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

[rf] I'd say you need the right structure. 

Mechanism is the non constructive bet that such a right structure exists, is finitely describable relatively to some “physical” universal numbers (computer). No machine can prove that such a level exists, but we can be lucky by doing the right bet (at that level or below).

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. 

Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. 

 I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? 

Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).

 How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.

[rf] These same folks are also aerobic creatures running the ~same carbon-water-based structural coding. 

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

[rf] I'm still not getting it.    Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix”? 

It is almost exactly that: except that we are in infinitely many Matrices at once. Then our consciousness will differentiate once the matrices differentiates on different inputs or oracle (possibly non computable inputs on which the arithmetical reality dovetails).

[rf] Nested fields within nested fields.    

  I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.

There vertical and horizontal nesting. Universal number mimicking universal numbers mimicking universal numbers etc. But with the self-reference you have universal numbers mimicking themselves (cf the video showing the game of life emulating the game of life), and circular “nestings”. 

[rf] Like sequences of DNA coding for  certain amino acid chains giving rise to catalytic or inhibitory enzymes?

Best regards,

Ralph 

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.

Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.

I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.

[rf] Before I would blame my high school geometry teacher for me not tracking on proofs, I'd dial back to hitting my head on a rock when I was ten-ish, or simply just not having that sort of aptitude.  Although I think of myself as a tactile learner,  basically if I can't ~picture or sketch a diagram or something ~visular or imaginativeI probably will not understand it or have "a way in".    It's my lack.     

Diagrams are very good, and bad teachers are very bad. There are also personal affinities, but everyone can

...

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno,

There is quite a bit of uncertainty re what happens when we die, huh?

Indeed. But some statements can be deduce from some assumptions, so we can reason (if we have the taste for such inquiry).

And about spiritual matters and the undecidability wrt items of faith. I guess or have read that that is why they are issues and items of faith -- because there is no rationalizing or proof or justifications. 

A proof is always given in the frame of a theory/axioms/hypothesis/finite-codes, etc.

Of course, by experience, we add plausibilities to some theories, but in the fundamental inquiries, unfortunately we can met here or there the use of violence (from the non valid use of the shrugging to the non valid use of bombs, …).

It's part of the exquisite mystery. Such are matters of faith. 

OK.

A brief moment of NDE in1977 once partly convinced me of the peace and resonance of it~hopefully, when the time comes. But there is still no proof and sometimes anxiety grows. Still  faith remains the size of  a mustard seed.  

With Mechanism, like with the Salvia divinorum, some people understand for the first time in their life that the idea that the 3p death entails the 1p death is based on invalid argument, and suddenly, they get far more anxious. I understood that for many people, the”nothing after death” is really a form of wishful thinking. 

It is normal anxiety grows. Now, at some level, the uncertainty is part of life, and with mechanism there is a priori an inflation even of type of afterlife, and we have some control. I fear more the human fear of truth than truth, and in that sense I have faith, I trust the (unknown and never publicly communicable truth).

A confession I can make is I may be or am or have been said to be woefully lacking in deducing  and inferring.

That will not help you for communication. But my point was not a critic of your idea, but only that you could not deduce that they are in opposition to Mechanism, once we use the “modern” notion of Turing (universal) machines. If you are aware that you have problem with deduction, you might try just to be more cautious in negative statement. 

So if some of your statements and ambiguous terminology presenting proving (or is it disproving) Mechanism/Materialism IF your consciousness could survive "digital mechanism" substitution.... relies on some unstated deduction or inference,

It is my working *hypothesis*. We never try to deduce an hypothesis. We deduce proposition from an hypothesis.

chances are that is part of why  I am missing the point of your expression.  It's my lack. If you can be more clear about the high points and problem you aim  to solve, besides a "Matrix" sequel screenplay,

My work has been published before Matrix. Actually, the Novel of Daniel B. Galouye (SIMULACRON 3) use Mechanism more validly. I recommend it. 

Mechanism is the hypothesis that the brain/body is a natural machine. It means basically that there is no magic, and that the relation between the relevant constituents are logical and locally causal (in a large sense of local, valid even with quantum “non-locality”). What is typical with machine is that their identity is invariant for the change of the constituents. We can argue that life has already bet on Mechanism, as we change our constitution all the time, by eating and defecating, by breathing also. I don’t defend that hypothesis, but show that it forces us to derive the physical laws from “machine’s theology”, which is itself derivable from pure arithmetic (thanks to Gödel’s arithmetization of meta-mathematics). Of course, this last point asks for more work. If interested I suggest you read the argument in 8 steps presented in the sane04 paper. We can discuss each step at a time online.

I would appreciate it.  Still, it's my lack and we DO reason differently.

Logicians are used to make precise the available laws of reasoning. That includes the use of the connective “and”, “or”, “implies”, “not”, etc. I use and reason in classical logic, but most of what I say can be shown using intuitionistic logic (where the (A or not A) rules is rejected).

I avoid metaphor and analogy. 

Some other points below...

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 10 Jan 2018, at 09:14, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""",  in ~my ~logic  can I revise or re-format that to: 

Reality is mechanism.    (bm)

Not at all. I have proved that if my consciousness can survive a digital brain or body transplant, then whatever Reality is, it is NOT a mechanism.

You seem to have not yet well understood that if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).

[rf] I sort of don't see what the math has to do with it.  Or,  if I opt for me doing some type of intuitive-ish logic, or in my case like a deeply nested ~pattern-biochemical, fields within fields energy-structure, carbon-water-based structural coding  balancing act, whereas you are really masterful at the more standard rationalistic mathematical logic,  then we do certainly ~reason differently, if I can even call what ~my structural coding is as  "reasoning".  And I can probably see your point that you think your approach is superior along the criteria that you and your group appreciate.  

Computation and computability has been discovered in mathematics. A (general purpose) computer is a physical implementation (incarnation) of a universal Turing machine, which was at the start a concept in pure mathematics (and since then we know it is even an arithmetical object that we can define with only the arithmetical notion of 0, +1, + and *. That is not completely obvious. It is done explicitly in Martin Davis Dover book “Computability and Unsolvabiliy”. 

But, back to my rather autistic/engineer-like   aim though, a goal I have been seeking is to like, for instance, not to find ALL  or the BEST, say, ~equations of quantum gravity, or a working trial theory of consciousness, but to scribble out an initial, approximate instance that delivers enough physical intuition to spark the new awareness.

That can be interesting. I am not criticising this. Just that it is not opposed to Mechanism. 

This has led me into the analog math symbols and expressions to get the synchrony and the *feel*, and to beginning with the tetrahedral structure (rather than the xyz-cube, used, say, in Hamiltonians and elsewhere), because that pattern is (1) a different basis than the cube, and (2) rather ubiquitous within relevant atomic-molecular levels of our ontology.  

If you have some link which explains what can be done and not done in their respective formalism. Eventually, with mechanism, physics (and the whole theology) will not depend on the choice for the starting universal theory.

So, yes, I am doing a rather crude approximation of a paradigm shift as I seek a paradigm shift, and, I am encouraged by the information compression and physical intuition delivered by the initial approximation -- just by picking a different specific structure and  ~duality.

In our on-going discussion here,  perhaps because I point at our organic chemistry -- carbon-water-based structural coding, and "magnetic tetrahedra" as quick and dirty analog math symbols of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds and I describe/visualize having a "free" internal representation of surroundings structurally coding  in a ~6^n manner  in the10^20 per second water molecules forming within our aerobic respiration reaction sites (within neurons), that those references put me in the category of "materialist", or advocating that ~we are "machines" or "cwb machines". Perhaps that is an accurate categorization although, considering reality as nested structured~duality,  as nested fields within nested fields, I often think I am more focused on patterns than on materials.  Referencing atoms' names refer to patterns and they are a bit like symbols, like the number-words.  I suspect though that getting an internal representation in the cwb structural coding, though, which is like developing a structure-related memory  back at the start of aerobic respiration and prior to development of neural networks is less panpsychist or cosmic consciousness-like than many might prefer.  Yes, it's like a small, local, provincial trial theory maybe only relevant for types of solar systems like ours whose suns make carbon, etc.

Anyway,   the notion of machine, and I think mechanism, as either favorable, or proveable or decidable, etc.,

The point will be that the theory of machine is NOT decidable, and is actually highly undecidable. You need to integrate the Turing-Gödel’s amazing discovery, which is, to be short, that we know nothing about machines.

MAY be a paradigm-bound quibble relating to the storyline one wants to present -- that is, one's favorite  instance of --Yes, you guessed it!-- nested structured~duality.    

Bruno, I am still not clear on if you use Turing universal machines to prove or disprove mechanism,

I use it to define “Digital Mechanism”, to show that it is incompatible with physicalism/materialism, and then to derive a way to test it. Thanks to QM, evidences are given in favour of Mechanism (and thus in de-favor of (weak) materialism. We just need to come back to Plato. The ultimate reality is NOT what we see, measure, quantify, but something behind all this.

but when I was watching videos on UTM's, it looks to me like they are also a mechanism (read, write, move, etc.). Is that a problem or a feature in your proofs?

A feature.

Where you write: """ ...if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).""",   I get the impression you are forgetting your pre-natal and subsequent developments where prior to you making any predictions, you had some experiences that, let's say, structurally coded into some types of memories.  So, when we get around to "predicting", we're already initialized 

Yes, the prediction are always relative to the state we are in. We have the same thing in (quantum) physics. 

-- conditioned or have a hunch or reduced set of possibilities to flounder about. So, those  "infinitely many computations" are likely a feature of your abstract math model.

OK, but the "abstract math model” is the one we learn at the primary school, literally. If you have no problem with 2+2=4, the rest follow from this and similar. You might intuit that the digital character of the Turing machine/computer is what is responsible in making computation equivalent with some number relation.

In the "cwb organism" (which is likely a better name than cwb machine)    the initial structural coding for an experience is ~automatic. It just happens.  The experience just WRITES the ~6^n pattern. (Or, I suppose you can consider the WRITE at some other level or at multiple levels.) Anyway, the reference is ~given.   The system "writes" it.

As far as I can make sense of this, I do not see why this would not be amenable to number relation. 

whereas I advocate:

Reality is nested structured~duality.   (rf)    ?

Which is expected when we assume Mechanism.

[rf] Is this a retro-prediction on your part? 

Yes. Actually I derived the semantics (many-worlds) and a part of the quantum formalism from arithmetic and mechanism (and biology at that time) before I knew anything about quantum mechanics. What the physicists qualify as weird becomes obvious. What seems normal, like the use of an Hamiltonian becomes the most difficult part to derive, and some aspect of the Hamiltonian might be “geographical” and not “physical”, in which case the physical reality would be bigger than what is usually thought.

Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """,  I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me.  

You need only to study a bit more logic, to see that some of your conclusion makes sense with mechanism, and are even desirable in the sense that we might (if you are correct) derive the importance of the water molecules in life and consciousness.

[rf] I get the impression that I am suggesting structure is fundamental, or adding structure with energy as fundamentals.

But what is energy? And where does it comes from? And how that can be associated with consciousness? That are the question which interests me.

That *feels* to me like it is ~below or in support of "mechanism" and "organism" (and all the other instances of NSD). Even in your UTM, you have left-right structure. 

Yes, but arithmetic is typically left-right (cf 0, s(0), s(s(0)), …). But that is unimportant. The integers are also Turing universal (with + and *).

The basic machinery is not important, as far as it is Turing universal. I could also use rational numbers. But I cannot use the real numbers, because they are (at the first order logical level) too poor to be Turing Universal. Real numbers + trigonometrical functions is again Turing universal, but to derive physics, I prefer to not assume trigonometrical functions.

I encounter my wall of fog essentially as soon as when trying to ~visualize ~why one would represent counting numbers as chains of calls to an incrementor function -- successors. I am still wishing for a picture or diagram or clear example that illuminates the advantage of such an initial set of associations on the front-end of math/symbolic logic.   It looks or feels like obfuscation to me.   Again, pardon my persistent ignorance.  

There are many equivalent theories. You can propose another theory, if it is Turing-complete (Turing universal) it will be enough, and nothing can be added. 

I likely misunderstood some of your axiom questions, but I ~think I may have a basic problem with assuming 0 (zero).

Is your problem about “assuming” or about “zero”?

[rf] When I ponder on unity and eternal then my problem is with "zero".    Like I said, for the math exercise, okay, assuming zero as the balance point or for accounting makes sense or has utility. As for logic, no doubt it's meaningful. I guess I would question the cross-system applicability to all aspects of ~our kind.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming that Mechanism is true. Just that it is premature with any current theory to assume it false. The digital machines does have a theory of consciousness and a full non trivial theology, which includes physics (and so is testable).

Because of some of my meditations on "eternal"  I have also grown skeptical about "in the beginning", or "empty space". So, yes, my problem is with "zero”. 

You need only to agree with statements involving zero, like to introspect yourself and agree (or not) that 4 + 0 = 4, 0 * 4 = 0, etc.

Does that block me from learning logic?

Only if you were genuinely believing statements like 4 + 0 = 5, and things of that kind.

My theory is not really mine. It is the theory already given by the universal machines, in arithmetic. 

That is, in math, yes, I get it,  If I have 3 apples and I eat them, then I have zero apples. 

OK. Good. That is the idea. 

However,  I had a (ralph) insight once that for fields, they really don't have or reach or recover from a value of zero, thus zero field strength (zero) doesn't ~exist.   "If anything" the ~field just disappears, dissipates, vanishes.   So I do sort of get that in the externalized abstract math and logic, zero exists and probabaly ALL that you write and theorize is completely valid in the rules of abstract math, but (according to me) it doesn't quite match up with the problems and challenges that we are actually nested within.  

You assume fields. Normally they need much more mathematical assumptions to be described. With mechanism, the fields, the 

Similarly, I think of vibrations or oscillations always between two or more states.   

Me too. That should not be a problem, unless you reify the states into “material” or “divine” state, which would blur the possible simpler explanation where the “matter illusion” and/or the “divine truth” would come from.

[rf] Do you see math and logic as closer to the "divine truth"?   Just asking.

Only the true but non provable part of it. Yes, I use Plato’s God, which is just Truth. That makes sense when we understand that even when we limit ourself to Arithmetical Truth, we are confronted with something which transcend us. You need to know that only a tiny part of truth is computable. The universal machine behaviour is already necessarily not entirely computable. Such machine might not stop for communicable/rational reason.

Digital machine theory is not dimensional, or 0-dimensional. xyz-cubic belongs to the dream of machine incarnated in arithmetical (not geometrical) relations. That does not mean that xyz-cubic, or something else, will not play some important role for *human consciousness* and its long and deep computations. But that must be derived somehow.

   If you notice, I start with the query on the common denominator of ~mental and ~physical and, due to the empirical evidence, switch to tetrahedral structure due to the pattern recognition hit. 

The dominant scientific paradigm is still unaware that metaphysics and theology can be approached, at east according to *some* hypotheses, with the scientific method/attitude (which is modesty, no claim of truth, no ontological commitment, clear refutable theories (it is work demanding).

[rf] My approach  is less sophisticated. After pounding the cubic horse for ~400 years, why not explore  a different structural basis and see what relationships turn up?

No problem, as long as you do not conclude that a man with a digital brain is less human. My point was only that what you say is not proven to be incompatible with mechanism. 

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

[rf]  The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,)

It looks many trucks, hoists and cranes to install at IBM their first 5 MegaBytes hard drive, and now, you can put million of these MG in your pockets. All applications are universal programmed Chips, so yes, the computers are physical implementations of Universal Machine, provably so if you accept the theses (proved equivalent) by Church, Kleene, Post, Turing, etc.

But then, after that,  in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality   I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So  our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine  modifies its own tapes and structures and actions. 

That is what the universal machine/number/word likes to do the most: to transform themselves, with respect to other probable universal number. 

The nesting can be related with dreams inside dreams, but the dreams obeys the law of numbers, and limit of numbers. From inside, the nesting is truly infinite.

  But in contrast to a math duplicator,  the cwb   can't just materialize an imaginary  oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running,  we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding.  

Only because you take for granted, perhaps, the idea that the fundamental reality is physical. 

I do not.

[rf] Is it true the remainder of your statement here is: "I consider the fundamental  reality is mathematical.”? 

Even arithmetical. Analysis and physics are convenient fictions by numbers trying to understand themselves (in arithmetic). But this is not a reductionism, because it is proven that from inside arithmetic, things *must* look far bigger and never completed. 

The physical is fundamental, but it is only the Clothes of God. The physical is, or should, only be a tool used by God to say “hello” to Itsef.

It is not the fundamentally “real” thing, which has admittedly slightly more “trivial”: the arithmetical reaiity, and, at some point, even only the semi-computable arithmetical reality.

But the key to understand is that such a correspondence should itself never been taken for granted, and digital mechanism is a type of religion: it acts some faith. At some point any theology takes the risk of blasphemy, directly or when misunderstood. Here, the mathematics of self-reference can be helpful.

[rf]  Again, try to notice that what I am saying is reality is nested structured~duality.

OK. But I am a simple minded modest logician. “Nested structured-duality” is nice, but that assumes a lot of thing which needs to be made precise if we want to study the compatibility of the idea with this or that metaphysics. 

This nested structured~duality  is the common denominator, the fundamental tenet supporting  ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts.   You seem to want to use number-words; I lean toward using atom-molecular-pattern words. Both say, "Hi, God. How are you?". Don't they?

I want to explain the complex things from the simpler one. I do not assume a physical reality. That would be like given the answer before doing the reasoning. My interest is in theology/metaphysics.

~My storyline just dips down into re-engineering the scientific paradigm to align a bit better with observed natural pattern -- switching from cube to tetrahedral basis; initializing with a different duality; adding nested structure as fundamental.   

What changes are you proposing?   

No changes at all. I criticised only your deduction that your theory would be incompatible with digital mechanism. Then, if your idea is correct, it should be derived from mechanism, some day. And it could accelerate the derivation of carbon based organism in arithmetic.

When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another   entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another  byte or two of memory.   But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.

I doubt less 2 * 3 = 6 than the idea that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, or that F=GmM/r^2. I confess. 

[rf] I remember reading and copying and practicing the multiplication tables, in 3rd and 4th grade, and committing those patterns to memory, too. I'd agree, I doubt them less, as so far, remember them more than the other patterns.

Ah! Good. So there is really no problem for the understanding. You need only to do some work, or, just be cautious not deriving negative view in metaphysics to quickly.

With respect to the arithmetical reality, a “physical" memory is only needed to remain in the physical reality, that is the normal (Gaussian) computational histories.

[rf] Do you ever still count on your fingers? 

That’s where the terms “digits” and “digital” come from (latin; digits = finger). But I am a mathematician: I never count. I only dream about that :)

'Near death', the question becomes more difficult, as there are infinities of histories, and a priori you survive on the closer consistent one. Arithmetic entails there is something like “near death experiences”, and they are evidences for some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. There are complex nesting there too. (Assuming Mechanism).

[rf] My brief experience, FWIW, which could also have been a passing fancy, is more so like a growing, peaceful  resonance, like tending toward a strong attractor. Sure, the anxieties seem to prompt a bunch of recalculations, but surrendering, the path is already formed. One only need to follow.  Surrendering is sometimes difficult.

I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or  universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.

It raises the interesting subject of the possible physical implementation of universal relations in 3D space, with varieties of constraints.

[rf] Where or how do you come up with this notion of 3D space? 

I am a long way to explain that. I have only some technical speculation, based on the fact that the physics is given by a logic which allows a formal knot theory to develop, and 4D space-time (actually 24D-space-time) arise from some relation which should exist in that logic, but the proofs use many conjecture. Yet, there is no choice: if mechanism is correct, the 3D space must be explained from number self-reference, even if the task asks for billions years of work? As you can guess, the goal is not practical, only theological or metaphysical. 

Do you mean distance in three orthogonal directions? What you reach out at when you extend your arms and spin around?   Do you believe in empty space as a fundamental? 

It is fundamental, but not primitive. Space belongs to the number mind (assuming Mechanism).

In the 6^n ordered water structural coding that I am pointing at the sybmols are provided "for free" as a sidebar of the respiration/energy reaction, but they don't get "written" as one of the ~six symbols by surrounding vibrations except as the molecule forms and perhaps enters into a microtubular channel. Then the next, and the next.   

No problem. Unless you use that material prematurely against the idea of mechanism and its immaterial consequences.

Note that classical gravitation theory is Turing universal with three bodies? Quantum field theory is Turing universal with the vacuum, i.e. with 0 bodies (!).

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.

[rf] Can you explain or demonstrate why or how, this successor notion is really an advantage?   To me, writing and thinking 3 is better than tracking on  s(s(s(0))) or the third successor of zero, 

To me too. It is just a practical notation to define axiomatically the natural numbers. If you use the base two notation, the axioms will be more cumbersome, and the metamathematics (where we will study mathematically the theory and its relation with the arithmetical truth) will become unreadable. 

[rf] That sounds like either an effective psychological defense mechanism or a limiting communication tool.. 

? (It is just notation to ease the (meta)-reasoning.

Also, it seems ~we have already  initiated the number line before associating  s(s(s(0))) with 3.   

It is a just a notation, for what we already understand, usually. 

The first axiom/question is:  do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?

Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?

The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).

[rf]  Can you give any possible example  or explanation of Mechanism, and are you saying this is like an unending instruction set?   -- NOT like my DNA, but maybe  like my DNA on epigenetic modifications?

Mechanism is the idea that our bodies are (natural) machine, which means they works through finite local interaction at some description level.

[rf] I don't think this mechanism/machine holds for carbon-water-based organisms like us emersed  within carbon- water - nitrogen- cycles, ecological networks and food chains, etc..

It is here that your bad deduction ability, that you mentioned, might play you a trick. Or perhaps you conceive “machine” only in its old 19th century meaning, which concerns already not your laptop computer.

Then, accepting the Church-Turing thesis, it becomes a theorem that all computations are implemented by all computers, including in elementary arithmetic. 

Machines are finite objects, but they can’t avoid growing up and developing themselves through many histories. Then you have to take into account that the machine’s first person perspective is infinitely distributed on infinitely many computations, and “observably” so below their substitution level (which suggests that the substitution level is the quantum level, which is mainly an isolation notion, than a scale).

[rf] So, what's it mean that we are not such finite machines? 

That we would have infinite abilities, and that we might re-instore an identity machine-matter or mind-brain. Aristotle theology could be saved, in that case. But that would mean that we are back at square 1 for the mind-body problem.

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

[rf] Like I wrote above,   I sort of get  what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic  but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc., 

OK. But for me, nothing is conceivably wilder than the arithmetical reality, up to the point of trying to explain how the apparent orders can emerge from the many-dreams realised in arithmetic.

[rf] For that, you probably need to switch over to a different symbol set.

Yes. Numbers do that all the time, relatively to each others.

 

You might confuse the mathematical theories and the mathematical reality. Since Gödel, we have good reason (even theorem assuming mechanism) to believe that the arithmetical reality is quite transcendent. 

[rf] There you go relying upon the unacknowledged fundamental nested structure again -- transcendent.

It follows from the simple arithmetical principles like 5 + 0 = 5 etc. (that is not obvious).

And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely

The math expression does not fully express completely … the arithmetical reality. 

or wholly match up with all ~life transactions. 

That might be true or false, nobody know. But it is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. I push the logic until I see an internal or an external contradictions. 

So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. 

Hmm… That is applied to physics too, and economy, etc. 

[rf] ?? 

Did your bank account never been equal to 0? You are lucky! 

To be honest, I do not understand how you can think that zero has no application in math and physics. 

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line,   I might be inclined to agree with you.    I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. 

~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is  focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality.     But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.

I look for an explanation of the origin of the physical laws, which does not put consciousness under the rug, as the average Aristotelian materialist do. 

Usually Mechanism is advocated by materialist, but I try to explain this does not work. Then it is easier to explain how numbers can dream, and how some dreams can develop into stable sharable physical realities, but with no need of ontological stuff.

[rf]  So, is that all predicated on you and I being carbon-water-based organisms able to generate and modify our own look-up tables

Universal numbers support universal number changing their own code and table. No need of water for this.

and adaptive action tapes as something that cannot or should not be happening?  Or have you never consider it or had it put in front of you?

I do, but all universal machines are confronted with this. You just need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science.

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms. 

?   (I am saying that the axioms (mechanism) is confirmed. It makes no sense to say that a there is confirmed by having false axioms). 

You lost me here. We are not reasoning at the same level.

[rf] Where you say: """but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above""",   I look at the situation and suggest, sort of, "Your powers are weak old man" (from Star Wars...), meaning that   developing the mathematical/logical symbolic expression gets you the kinds of things it does, but it apparently cannot or does not or has not yet given a strong enough expression so ~you can grasp what is going on.  From my perspective that would take elevating nested structure and aiming closer to replicate or emulate all of the kinds of nested structural coding that we have going on in and around our atomic-molecular ontology.  

But all of those things don't make any sense within ~your numbers-logic rules since any mention of "atom" is likely only associable with materialism. 

Only if you assume that atoms are made of something primitively material, but there are no evidences for this. In fact there are never been any evidence for primitive matter. My derivation just shows that we could find indirect evidence for it, but the test does not (yet) show it. 

Another way to consider it is, to me, it seems  you are the one who also assumes that math/logic can or does model or can give accurate insights into human ~consciousness and/or ~self -- however it is said.  Even though we are unity-based beings, your logic is zero-based and thus a little be out of kilter. Not quite applicable to our ~systems. I suggest this is like trying to describe fire in terms of its smoke -- like thinking backwards.   When one gets down to having, let's say, a structurally coded internal representation of surroundings (with links to expression) then that is the system actually generating the externalized math/logic and physical law contents and expressions.    

I do not assume that math or logic can do this or that, because that is simple to derive from the Mechanist Hypothesis. Then the math shows that the machine has the means to understand that its local physics is necessary, and comes from the arithmetical relations, and that makes Mechanism testable. By assuming a *primitive* physical reality, you just put yourself in a position where we will not been able to study simpler hypothesis, and for no reason, because your argument seems to be based on a conception of machine which is no more tenable after Turing discovery of the universal machine, or Kleene’s discovery of the partial recursive functions. To me, the discovery of the universal machine is the biggest discovery made by humanity, even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines).

My hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat.

Not at all. The duplicator existence is a theorem derivable from the axiom I gave. You just miss Gödel’s astounding achievement of the arithmetization of metamathematics. You are not alone, despite tuns of book, this is largely ignored, but it changes a lot the possible metaphysics/theology available when assuming Mechanism.

I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that  what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding

I agree, but there could be a reason why. And the fact that we are emulate by a “machinery” does not make necessarily that “machinery” made of stuff, or being the most fundamental. 

With mechanism, it is very simple: ANY Turing universal machine is enough. The theology and the physics cannot depend on the choice of the ontological theory. Theology, which includes physics, becomes “machine-independent”, as the computer scientist says about laws about programs which does not depend on the chosen programming language or machine. 

[rf] Yes, okay, different instances of nested structured~duality.  But all of us here in the local region are running the carbon-water-based organism structural coding.  Again, I suggest it's more to do with specific structure (structured~duality)  than with mechanism.

That is possible. Many contingencies are in play in the computations in arithmetic. In the world where an asteroid did not fall on Earth some millions years ago, I am a dinosaur … Maybe there are worlds with a different Planck constant, etc. What is nice with mechanism is that we find the “absolute” physics which is the same for all universal machine, then consciousness differentiate on different histories.

and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.

If your theory doesn't have, yet have,  or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then   you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way. 

On the contrary, I am all for the testing. I predicted most quantum weirdness from the assumption of mechanism, but it took me a lot of years to get the quantum logics from pure math, and the test confirms all of them. As they are different, surely we can progress.

[rf] Not to subtract from your accomplishments, but I am still curious about how I can start with five water to align four rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron and get physical intuition on variable density multiple states. And then get more states by nesting structures -- without using much if any abstract math.

The problem is that you need math to make predictions, so that we can compare with other theories.

Then, my point illustrates that the alternative “materialism” is also tested, but get no confirmation. If you invoke a metaphysical reality, like a primitively material universe, it is up to you to present evidence. All what I show is that weak materialism (the belief in primary matter) and Mechanism, (the belief that consciousness is invariant for the digital local transplant) are not compatible (contrary to what atheist materialist often defend).

[rf]  Can you clarify or spread that out a bit more?

It is not obvious. I am describing a result which too many years of work, but you can get the gist of it by reading the argument in 8 steps in the sane04 paper(*).

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

That's still too complicated a statement for me to follow.   From my perspective I still say that you have still done all of what you say relying upon and using the carbon-water-basis ~tetrahedral-like structural coding.  

OK. But not in any fundamental way (or you have to prove this). There is no doubt that carbon is important, but with mechanism it is only necessary for our histories, or not, depending on your work or similar. Open problem. 

Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes    in a somewhat disruptive manner.

?

[rf] Once you acquire even an approximate, ~working  "internal model of consciousness", abstract math symbols and expressions  and logic structures become secondary devices. 

Math symbols and expressions are secondary in mathematics, but they become primary in the mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow. But consciousness is beyond symbols, even provably so with mechanism. Symbols are like bodies: their use is for relative communication, not for the things in itself. (Already in mathematics, but here I am aware that some people confuse mathematical theories (which uses symbols), and the mathematical reality (which does not use symbols).

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

[rf] Don't see why - what?   

The 19th century did have a reductionist conception of machine. Since Gödel and Turing, we know that the universal machine are terrible unknown. I did not see why you said the sentence above, and I was suggesting you might use a reductionist conception of machines.

[rf] My impression is I am not following that approach. I've taken a different path through the woods.   I ~feel more like I am just taking the givens, choosing a different nested structured~duality  and  showing how to get a structured  internal representation of surroundings nested within our ontology. 

I may make reference to "machine", but I do more mean "organism" and one that is quite smeared out within our surroundings. 

From their first person conscious points of view, machines are quite smeared in the whole (non computable) arithmetical reality. I use organisms and mechanism mostly as synonymous. A machine/organism is anything working without magic, say.

 So, yes, reduced down to organic chemistry and a handful of sp^3 hybridized ~tetrahedral-like patterns, but also smeared out amid several nested fields within nested fields.

Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.

[rf] So what does it mean in your theory if we shut off/revise your oxygen supply and you lose consciousness and/or can't  write logically correct statements, if all of that is substitutable with digital mechanism? 

If you limit my supply of oxygen I will die relatively to you. From my first person perspective I will survive in the computations where you don’t do that, or in any other consistent history close (in some sense related to the logic of self-reference).

It is the frightening aspect of mechanism: we can’t die. But theoretical computer science (intensional number theory) suggests the existence of jumps, if not, like I say above, much more sophisticated bardo.To leave the cycle of death and rebirth is not easy.

[rf] I agree with your last statement but not from the math analysis. Moreso from reading a bit about and my own  small, different varieties of religious experiences.   I can ~imagine/~remember what it is/could be like.   Sort of like waking up from anesthesia  only it wasn't just anesthesia -- having missed the funeral in the prior world and taking up in the ~same but slightly different  Everette-many-worlds place.   

If you can emulate or discover  that in math, that is quite an accomplishment.

Thank you. It is the easiest part actually. Read the argument in 8 steps and ask question, if interested.

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers

Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.

--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. 

In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.

 The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? 

[rf] Are you saying you don't see why or what life and living has to do with thinking math logic thoughts?

I mean I keep my mind open to the idea that our physical universal might have life form based on different constituents and set of laws, and doubly so with mechanism, where we are at light years to get something like our three dimensional or 24 dimensional physical theories. But physics, as ontological science, is refuted, from the mechanist perspective. But physics has not been invented for doing metaphysics, so that is rather normal.

 

The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. 

[rf]  As above,  in math you can just make things appear. In life, one is inside a more deeply nested flow. 

In arithmetic, physical things can be explained as being apparently appearing. If not, you might be begging the question, and committing yourself ontologically. Better not to do that if we do metaphysics scientifically, to get the empirical tests.

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

[rf] I'd say you need the right structure. 

Mechanism is the non constructive bet that such a right structure exists, is finitely describable relatively to some “physical” universal numbers (computer). No machine can prove that such a level exists, but we can be lucky by doing the right bet (at that level or below).

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. 

Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. 

 I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? 

Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).

 How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.

[rf] These same folks are also aerobic creatures running the ~same carbon-water-based structural coding. 

On earth, not in heaven. But with mechanism, even heaven seems to obey to some quantum mechanics. But to explain this, I would need to explain much more material. Someday maybe.

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

[rf] I'm still not getting it.    Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix”? 

It is almost exactly that: except that we are in infinitely many Matrices at once. Then our consciousness will differentiate once the matrices differentiates on different inputs or oracle (possibly non computable inputs on which the arithmetical reality dovetails).

[rf] Nested fields within nested fields.    

Each time you say that, I think of the Mandelbrot set. Look at the video here which illustrates well the nesting in the nesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE.    (6 nesting)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJSPnF92N5E.   (3 nesting)

Note that such complex structure is entirely determined by a very simple equation: it is the domain of the cycling trajectories of the complex numbers z when iterating f(z) = z^2 + c, for all c in the rational-complex plane. It is an open problem if that set is Turing equivalent.

  I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.

There vertical and horizontal nesting. Universal number mimicking universal numbers mimicking universal numbers etc. But with the self-reference you have universal numbers mimicking themselves (cf the video showing the game of life emulating the game of life), and circular “nestings”. 

[rf] Like sequences of DNA coding for  certain amino acid chains giving rise to catalytic or inhibitory enzymes?

Yes, and enzymes acting on the DNA, etc.

All the best,

Bruno

Ralph 

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.

Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.

I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.

[rf] Before I would blame my high school geometry teacher for me not tracking on proofs, I'd dial back to hitting my head on a rock when I was ten-ish, or simply just not having that sort of aptitude.  Although I think of myself as a tactile learner,  basically if I can't ~picture or sketch a diagram or something ~visular or imaginativeI probably will not understand it or have "a way in".    It's my lack.     

Diagrams are very good, and bad teachers are very bad. There are also personal affinities, but everyone can

...

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c6a4b98a-c85f-4699-bdbc-50c9e53070d7%40googlegroups.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

First, thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false.   Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies. Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality.  Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set".  Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD's.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider. 

Some comments below...

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno,

There is quite a bit of uncertainty re what happens when we die, huh?

Indeed. But some statements can be deduce from some assumptions, so we can reason (if we have the taste for such inquiry).

And about spiritual matters and the undecidability wrt items of faith. I guess or have read that that is why they are issues and items of faith -- because there is no rationalizing or proof or justifications. 

A proof is always given in the frame of a theory/axioms/hypothesis/finite-codes, etc.

Of course, by experience, we add plausibilities to some theories, but in the fundamental inquiries, unfortunately we can met here or there the use of violence (from the non valid use of the shrugging to the non valid use of bombs, …).

[rf] Why not food and shelter for all?  I must be a hopeless/hopeful romantic.   I still think there is plenty of room for many of our difficulties  and challenges to just be rooted in the flaws in our initial scientific paradigm. Remediate the flaws and social, economic, environmental systems riding on the scientific paradigm will naturally improve.  

It's part of the exquisite mystery. Such are matters of faith. 

OK.

A brief moment of NDE in1977 once partly convinced me of the peace and resonance of it~hopefully, when the time comes. But there is still no proof and sometimes anxiety grows. Still  faith remains the size of  a mustard seed.  

With Mechanism, like with the Salvia divinorum, some people understand for the first time in their life that the idea that the 3p death entails the 1p death is based on invalid argument, and suddenly, they get far more anxious. I understood that for many people, the”nothing after death” is really a form of wishful thinking. 

It is normal anxiety grows. Now, at some level, the uncertainty is part of life, and with mechanism there is a priori an inflation even of type of afterlife, and we have some control. I fear more the human fear of truth than truth, and in that sense I have faith, I trust the (unknown and never publicly communicable truth).

A confession I can make is I may be or am or have been said to be woefully lacking in deducing  and inferring.

That will not help you for communication. But my point was not a critic of your idea, but only that you could not deduce that they are in opposition to Mechanism, once we use the “modern” notion of Turing (universal) machines. If you are aware that you have problem with deduction, you might try just to be more cautious in negative statement. 

[rf]  Perhaps to clarify, I don't think I oppose mechanism/organism since I am scribbling up images of analog math in attempt to illuminate interactive structural coding patterns visualizable in stacks of ordered water and similar carbon-based widgets.  I believe my concern or skepticism is more on the digital mechanism _substitution_ proposal.   Perhaps I can come around to comprehend or understand Turing machines and the storyline that you advocate, but, pragmatically, once I hear about an infinity of ~calculations, or consider years or decades to acquire the requisite mathematical incantations,  the pathway violates    a simplicity rule -- that I have, for me -- and I seek a more visible or more tactile path.   Different blind men; same elephant.

If or when there is a test of your substitution storyline, perhaps then I can grasp it.

So if some of your statements and ambiguous terminology presenting proving (or is it disproving) Mechanism/Materialism IF your consciousness could survive "digital mechanism" substitution.... relies on some unstated deduction or inference,

It is my working *hypothesis*. We never try to deduce an hypothesis. We deduce proposition from an hypothesis.

[rf] How do you come up with a hypothesis, then, inference? Successive approximations? Lucky guesses? 

chances are that is part of why  I am missing the point of your expression.  It's my lack. If you can be more clear about the high points and problem you aim  to solve, besides a "Matrix" sequel screenplay,

My work has been published before Matrix. Actually, the Novel of Daniel B. Galouye (SIMULACRON 3) use Mechanism more validly. I recommend it. 

Mechanism is the hypothesis that the brain/body is a natural machine. It means basically that there is no magic, and that the relation between the relevant constituents are logical and locally causal (in a large sense of local, valid even with quantum “non-locality”). What is typical with machine is that their identity is invariant for the change of the constituents. We can argue that life has already bet on Mechanism, as we change our constitution all the time, by eating and defecating, by breathing also.

[rf] Our eating, respiring and defecating  keep an energy flow going.  The invariant or slow-changing  parts are our structurally coded patterns.    

 

I don’t defend that hypothesis, but show that it forces us to derive the physical laws from “machine’s theology”, which is itself derivable from pure arithmetic (thanks to Gödel’s arithmetization of meta-mathematics). Of course, this last point asks for more work. If interested I suggest you read the argument in 8 steps presented in the sane04 paper. We can discuss each step at a time online.

[rf] I'd say that back in the uncorrupted, not misunderstood garden, we discover  and describe "the physical laws" and commit them to memory and pass them to offspring because doing so helps with energy collection and conservation.  Theology is a bit of a separate matter.

I would appreciate it.  Still, it's my lack and we DO reason differently.

Logicians are used to make precise the available laws of reasoning. That includes the use of the connective “and”, “or”, “implies”, “not”, etc. I use and reason in classical logic, but most of what I say can be shown using intuitionistic logic (where the (A or not A) rules is rejected).

I avoid metaphor and analogy. 

[rf] Whereas I think analog math or modeling is the cat's meow.  Go figure.  I appreciate your perseverance and patience in trying to summarize your approach so I might catch a glimpse of it.

Some other points below...

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 10 Jan 2018, at 09:14, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""",  in ~my ~logic  can I revise or re-format that to: 

Reality is mechanism.    (bm)

Not at all. I have proved that if my consciousness can survive a digital brain or body transplant, then whatever Reality is, it is NOT a mechanism.

You seem to have not yet well understood that if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).

[rf] I sort of don't see what the math has to do with it.  Or,  if I opt for me doing some type of intuitive-ish logic, or in my case like a deeply nested ~pattern-biochemical, fields within fields energy-structure, carbon-water-based structural coding  balancing act, whereas you are really masterful at the more standard rationalistic mathematical logic,  then we do certainly ~reason differently, if I can even call what ~my structural coding is as  "reasoning".  And I can probably see your point that you think your approach is superior along the criteria that you and your group appreciate.  

Computation and computability has been discovered in mathematics. A (general purpose) computer is a physical implementation (incarnation) of a universal Turing machine, which was at the start a concept in pure mathematics (and since then we know it is even an arithmetical object that we can define with only the arithmetical notion of 0, +1, + and *. That is not completely obvious. It is done explicitly in Martin Davis Dover book “Computability and Unsolvabiliy”. 

But, back to my rather autistic/engineer-like   aim though, a goal I have been seeking is to like, for instance, not to find ALL  or the BEST, say, ~equations of quantum gravity, or a working trial theory of consciousness, but to scribble out an initial, approximate instance that delivers enough physical intuition to spark the new awareness.

That can be interesting. I am not criticising this. Just that it is not opposed to Mechanism. 

[rf] I suppose I agree --not opposed to mechanism--, but the way I ~feel about it is that the mechanism on my path is more like enzymatic or  catalytic rather than one reading and punching card decks, or a water wheel driving operation of a multi-story building full of woolen blanket looms.   I shift to a different instance of nested structured~duality and the artifact provides physical intuition, ~directly, by-passing the usual dip down into the secondary abstract math.   

Seems to be a different class of mechanism.

This has led me into the analog math symbols and expressions to get the synchrony and the *feel*, and to beginning with the tetrahedral structure (rather than the xyz-cube, used, say, in Hamiltonians and elsewhere), because that pattern is (1) a different basis than the cube, and (2) rather ubiquitous within relevant atomic-molecular levels of our ontology.  

If you have some link which explains what can be done and not done in their respective formalism. Eventually, with mechanism, physics (and the whole theology) will not depend on the choice for the starting universal theory.

[rf] Formalism? What formalism?   The formalism is reality is nested structured~duality -- and then choose tetrahedron for structure and attraction-repulsion for duality.   Then the  loom spits out physical intuition.

Your recipe may work for your instance of nested structured~duality. But perhaps before you try to impose your rules beyond their domain you likely should polish and shorten your list of operations so that  yours delivers similar physical intuition    with an equally terse instruction set. 

So, yes, I am doing a rather crude approximation of a paradigm shift as I seek a paradigm shift, and, I am encouraged by the information compression and physical intuition delivered by the initial approximation -- just by picking a different specific structure and  ~duality.

In our on-going discussion here,  perhaps because I point at our organic chemistry -- carbon-water-based structural coding, and "magnetic tetrahedra" as quick and dirty analog math symbols of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds and I describe/visualize having a "free" internal representation of surroundings structurally coding  in a ~6^n manner  in the10^20 per second water molecules forming within our aerobic respiration reaction sites (within neurons), that those references put me in the category of "materialist", or advocating that ~we are "machines" or "cwb machines". Perhaps that is an accurate categorization although, considering reality as nested structured~duality,  as nested fields within nested fields, I often think I am more focused on patterns than on materials.  Referencing atoms' names refer to patterns and they are a bit like symbols, like the number-words.  I suspect though that getting an internal representation in the cwb structural coding, though, which is like developing a structure-related memory  back at the start of aerobic respiration and prior to development of neural networks is less panpsychist or cosmic consciousness-like than many might prefer.  Yes, it's like a small, local, provincial trial theory maybe only relevant for types of solar systems like ours whose suns make carbon, etc.

Anyway,   the notion of machine, and I think mechanism, as either favorable, or proveable or decidable, etc.,

The point will be that the theory of machine is NOT decidable, and is actually highly undecidable. You need to integrate the Turing-Gödel’s amazing discovery, which is, to be short, that we know nothing about machines.

[rf]  Perhaps you are right. However, you are the one focusing in on machines and considering "mind-body" as a machine.   My quibble is not with machines but with what scientific paradigms develop from, or exploring  different instances of nested structured~duality -- while continuing to use our current carbon-water-based structural coding units.   

MAY be a paradigm-bound quibble relating to the storyline one wants to present -- that is, one's favorite  instance of --Yes, you guessed it!-- nested structured~duality.    

Bruno, I am still not clear on if you use Turing universal machines to prove or disprove mechanism,

I use it to define “Digital Mechanism”, to show that it is incompatible with physicalism/materialism, and then to derive a way to test it. Thanks to QM, evidences are given in favour of Mechanism (and thus in de-favor of (weak) materialism. We just need to come back to Plato. The ultimate reality is NOT what we see, measure, quantify, but something behind all this.

[rf]  And currently, we are structurally coding representations of all of our experiences in water-based and carbon-water-based patterns. It's happening, and we know it, but we can't see, measure or quantify all of it. And if we try to measure it it will alter it. What's the ultimate reality? What's behind all this?   Life and living. Love, togetherness, connection.  Attraction and attraction with one-half spin. 

but when I was watching videos on UTM's, it looks to me like they are also a mechanism (read, write, move, etc.). Is that a problem or a feature in your proofs?

A feature.

[rf] Seems to me, therefore that  your model works on unacknowledged nested structure. 

Where you write: """ ...if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).""",   I get the impression you are forgetting your pre-natal and subsequent developments where prior to you making any predictions, you had some experiences that, let's say, structurally coded into some types of memories.  So, when we get around to "predicting", we're already initialized 

Yes, the prediction are always relative to the state we are in. We have the same thing in (quantum) physics. 

-- conditioned or have a hunch or reduced set of possibilities to flounder about. So, those  "infinitely many computations" are likely a feature of your abstract math model.

OK, but the "abstract math model” is the one we learn at the primary school, literally. If you have no problem with 2+2=4, the rest follow from this and similar. You might intuit that the digital character of the Turing machine/computer is what is responsible in making computation equivalent with some number relation.

[rf] You have an ability that I do not have and it sounds to me like you have adopted or imagine symbols having special powers or material attributes. When cast as numbers, +, * and a read-write-move head viewing a non-material tape, sometimes imbued, seemingly magically with the dreaming consciousness state, I don't follow the breadcrumbs.  

In the "cwb organism" (which is likely a better name than cwb machine)    the initial structural coding for an experience is ~automatic. It just happens.  The experience just WRITES the ~6^n pattern. (Or, I suppose you can consider the WRITE at some other level or at multiple levels.) Anyway, the reference is ~given.   The system "writes" it.

As far as I can make sense of this, I do not see why this would not be amenable to number relation. 

[rf]  I guess I would point toward the closely coupled energy collection/conservation. Like love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage.  So, if you are talking about ~simulating structural coding representations with number-word codes and relations, then you'd also need to simulate the energy collection/conservation. But a simulation is not equal to the ~real (cwb) thing wherein ALL of the parts and pieces have multiple synergistic connections and supportive roles.   

whereas I advocate:

Reality is nested structured~duality.   (rf)    ?

Which is expected when we assume Mechanism.

[rf] Is this a retro-prediction on your part? 

Yes. Actually I derived the semantics (many-worlds) and a part of the quantum formalism from arithmetic and mechanism (and biology at that time) before I knew anything about quantum mechanics. What the physicists qualify as weird becomes obvious. What seems normal, like the use of an Hamiltonian becomes the most difficult part to derive, and some aspect of the Hamiltonian might be “geographical” and not “physical”, in which case the physical reality would be bigger than what is usually thought.

[rf] Your "geographical" hunch may be another "denied/ignored nested structure" signal. 

Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """,  I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me.  

You need only to study a bit more logic, to see that some of your conclusion makes sense with mechanism, and are even desirable in the sense that we might (if you are correct) derive the importance of the water molecules in life and consciousness.

[rf] I get the impression that I am suggesting structure is fundamental, or adding structure with energy as fundamentals.

But what is energy? And where does it comes from? And how that can be associated with consciousness? That are the question which interests me.

[rf] Energy is the stuff that flows through and powers ecological niches and networks. Locally, ours  comes from solar fusion via photosynthesis into carbohydrates, fats and proteins that we consume and aerobically respire.  I've already described how it  associates with ~consciousness. 

That *feels* to me like it is ~below or in support of "mechanism" and "organism" (and all the other instances of NSD). Even in your UTM, you have left-right structure. 

Yes, but arithmetic is typically left-right (cf 0, s(0), s(s(0)), …). But that is unimportant. The integers are also Turing universal (with + and *).

[rf] Are you really saying ordering and pre-sorting is irrelevant, inconsequential and unimportant and can be ignored? It seems to be an implicit portion of your instance of nested structured~duality.  As an advocate of NSD  I may need to  register a formal complaint.

The basic machinery is not important, as far as it is Turing universal. I could also use rational numbers. But I cannot use the real numbers, because they are (at the first order logical level) too poor to be Turing Universal. Real numbers + trigonometrical functions is again Turing universal, but to derive physics, I prefer to not assume trigonometrical functions.

[rf] Can the  real numbers be in random and/or inverse orderings?

[rf] When you say, "xyz-cubic belongs to the dream of machine incarnated in arithmetical (not geometrical) relations", are you saying that arithmetic ~owns the xyz orthogonal axes but is incapable of doing ratios of triangles features?  

Also, re: "dream of machine...", is this you  projecting a human quality on the machine/math, sort of like anthropomorphizing?  

   If you notice, I start with the query on the common denominator of ~mental and ~physical and, due to the empirical evidence, switch to tetrahedral structure due to the pattern recognition hit. 

The dominant scientific paradigm is still unaware that metaphysics and theology can be approached, at east according to *some* hypotheses, with the scientific method/attitude (which is modesty, no claim of truth, no ontological commitment, clear refutable theories (it is work demanding).

[rf] My approach  is less sophisticated. After pounding the cubic horse for ~400 years, why not explore  a different structural basis and see what relationships turn up?

No problem, as long as you do not conclude that a man with a digital brain is less human. My point was only that what you say is not proven to be incompatible with mechanism. 

[rf] I haven't encountered a person with a digital brain. Have you? 

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

[rf]  The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,)

It looks many trucks, hoists and cranes to install at IBM their first 5 MegaBytes hard drive, and now, you can put million of these MG in your pockets. All applications are universal programmed Chips, so yes, the computers are physical implementations of Universal Machine, provably so if you accept the theses (proved equivalent) by Church, Kleene, Post, Turing, etc.

But then, after that,  in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality   I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So  our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine  modifies its own tapes and structures and actions. 

That is what the universal machine/number/word likes to do the most: to transform themselves, with respect to other probable universal number. 

The nesting can be related with dreams inside dreams, but the dreams obeys the law of numbers, and limit of numbers. From inside, the nesting is truly infinite.

  But in contrast to a math duplicator,  the cwb   can't just materialize an imaginary  oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running,  we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding.  

Only because you take for granted, perhaps, the idea that the fundamental reality is physical. 

I do not.

[rf] Is it true the remainder of your statement here is: "I consider the fundamental  reality is mathematical.”? 

Even arithmetical. Analysis and physics are convenient fictions by numbers trying to understand themselves (in arithmetic). But this is not a reductionism, because it is proven that from inside arithmetic, things *must* look far bigger and never completed. 

The physical is fundamental, but it is only the Clothes of God. The physical is, or should, only be a tool used by God to say “hello” to Itsef.

It is not the fundamentally “real” thing, which has admittedly slightly more “trivial”: the arithmetical reaiity, and, at some point, even only the semi-computable arithmetical reality.

But the key to understand is that such a correspondence should itself never been taken for granted, and digital mechanism is a type of religion: it acts some faith. At some point any theology takes the risk of blasphemy, directly or when misunderstood. Here, the mathematics of self-reference can be helpful.

[rf]  Again, try to notice that what I am saying is reality is nested structured~duality.

OK. But I am a simple minded modest logician. “Nested structured-duality” is nice, but that assumes a lot of thing which needs to be made precise if we want to study the compatibility of the idea with this or that metaphysics. 

[rf] It seems to me you can get some insight by considering the nested structured~duality  of logic:  structure is linear/list-like; duality is true-false. 

This nested structured~duality  is the common denominator, the fundamental tenet supporting  ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts.   You seem to want to use number-words; I lean toward using atom-molecular-pattern words. Both say, "Hi, God. How are you?". Don't they?

I want to explain the complex things from the simpler one. I do not assume a physical reality. That would be like given the answer before doing the reasoning. My interest is in theology/metaphysics.

[rf]  Plus, you don't like analog math.      So, you ~assume an arithmetic reality: reality is arithmetical (where you order your numbers left to right), whereas, I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality.

I think we are getting closer.

~My storyline just dips down into re-engineering the scientific paradigm to align a bit better with observed natural pattern -- switching from cube to tetrahedral basis; initializing with a different duality; adding nested structure as fundamental.   

What changes are you proposing?   

No changes at all. I criticised only your deduction that your theory would be incompatible with digital mechanism. Then, if your idea is correct, it should be derived from mechanism, some day. And it could accelerate the derivation of carbon based organism in arithmetic.

[rf] I hear you, but I do think you are proposing some type of conceptual change or re-arrangement of tenets. Or is it a change of faith? 

When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another   entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another  byte or two of memory.   But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.

I doubt less 2 * 3 = 6 than the idea that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, or that F=GmM/r^2. I confess. 

[rf] I remember reading and copying and practicing the multiplication tables, in 3rd and 4th grade, and committing those patterns to memory, too. I'd agree, I doubt them less, as so far, remember them more than the other patterns.

Ah! Good. So there is really no problem for the understanding. You need only to do some work, or, just be cautious not deriving negative view in metaphysics to quickly.

With respect to the arithmetical reality, a “physical" memory is only needed to remain in the physical reality, that is the normal (Gaussian) computational histories.

[rf] Do you ever still count on your fingers? 

That’s where the terms “digits” and “digital” come from (latin; digits = finger). But I am a mathematician: I never count. I only dream about that :)

[rf] The counting on fingers, to me, involves sequences of correlated or connected protein-foldings, Extending digits while speaking the number-name and perhap[s recalling a visual image. 

'Near death', the question becomes more difficult, as there are infinities of histories, and a priori you survive on the closer consistent one. Arithmetic entails there is something like “near death experiences”, and they are evidences for some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. There are complex nesting there too. (Assuming Mechanism).

[rf] My brief experience, FWIW, which could also have been a passing fancy, is more so like a growing, peaceful  resonance, like tending toward a strong attractor. Sure, the anxieties seem to prompt a bunch of recalculations, but surrendering, the path is already formed. One only need to follow.  Surrendering is sometimes difficult.

I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or  universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.

It raises the interesting subject of the possible physical implementation of universal relations in 3D space, with varieties of constraints.

[rf] Where or how do you come up with this notion of 3D space? 

I am a long way to explain that. I have only some technical speculation, based on the fact that the physics is given by a logic which allows a formal knot theory to develop, and 4D space-time (actually 24D-space-time) arise from some relation which should exist in that logic, but the proofs use many conjecture. Yet, there is no choice: if mechanism is correct, the 3D space must be explained from number self-reference, even if the task asks for billions years of work? As you can guess, the goal is not practical, only theological or metaphysical. 

[rf] Or is the notion just originated once and then pased down in the oral/written tradition?

 

Do you mean distance in three orthogonal directions? What you reach out at when you extend your arms and spin around?   Do you believe in empty space as a fundamental? 

It is fundamental, but not primitive. Space belongs to the number mind (assuming Mechanism).

[rf] Do you mean what you consider the number mind assumes ~empty space ~first prior to populating and arranging numbers?

In the 6^n ordered water structural coding that I am pointing at the sybmols are provided "for free" as a sidebar of the respiration/energy reaction, but they don't get "written" as one of the ~six symbols by surrounding vibrations except as the molecule forms and perhaps enters into a microtubular channel. Then the next, and the next.   

No problem. Unless you use that material prematurely against the idea of mechanism and its immaterial consequences.

[rf] Why is that such a concern or consideration? 

[rf] Re: extra abilities, might those be like those ascribed to, say, Jesus, or perhaps yogiis as I may read in other threads in this forum.  So, most of us are just run of the mill folks but some have and can express special, extra abilities. 

Or would you just counter with those people accessing different classes of mechanism, i.e., is there just ONE finite mechanism for all of us 'machines', or different classes and categories of mechanism? 

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

[rf] Like I wrote above,   I sort of get  what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic  but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc., 

OK. But for me, nothing is conceivably wilder than the arithmetical reality, up to the point of trying to explain how the apparent orders can emerge from the many-dreams realised in arithmetic.

[rf] For that, you probably need to switch over to a different symbol set.

Yes. Numbers do that all the time, relatively to each others.

 

You might confuse the mathematical theories and the mathematical reality. Since Gödel, we have good reason (even theorem assuming mechanism) to believe that the arithmetical reality is quite transcendent. 

[rf] There you go relying upon the unacknowledged fundamental nested structure again -- transcendent.

It follows from the simple arithmetical principles like 5 + 0 = 5 etc. (that is not obvious)

[rf] You are right. It is not obvious (to me) as you have it written.  I am attempting to point out that people including mathematicians, seems to just invoke   "transcending" to a ~higher level but doing so while not acknowledging or explicitly assuming said levels of nested structure or organization to transcend to.

I see such things as indicators of reality being nested structured~duality even though people seem to say they don't have a clue what I am pointing at.  

And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely

The math expression does not fully express completely … the arithmetical reality. 

or wholly match up with all ~life transactions. 

That might be true or false, nobody know. But it is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. I push the logic until I see an internal or an external contradictions. 

So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. 

Hmm… That is applied to physics too, and economy, etc. 

[rf] ?? 

Did your bank account never been equal to 0? You are lucky! 

To be honest, I do not understand how you can think that zero has no application in math and physics. 

[rf] I sort of get that zero is like a balance point in math and physics.  My bank account can reach zero (or below) but that doesn't mean I can't go scrounge for food elsewhere. Vector in engineering problems can balance out. 

What I said and was thinking about was in your logic idea, the notion of being zero- or nothing-based, to me, seems in conflict with meditating on life being eternal and a unity.    So, from that angle, I don't question the recipe or rules where you build up the ~logic, but I'm skeptical about the application of all the logic patterns onto our ~physical and/or life patterns.   

Also, as I said before,   in physics, it seems to me that when one measures and gets nothing, no response, it seems to me that like the ~field is no longer present/existent -- not so much that the parameter's value has just gone to zero  which prompts me to consider that zero field strengths "don't exist".

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line,   I might be inclined to agree with you.    I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. 

~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is  focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality.     But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.

I look for an explanation of the origin of the physical laws, which does not put consciousness under the rug, as the average Aristotelian materialist do. 

Usually Mechanism is advocated by materialist, but I try to explain this does not work. Then it is easier to explain how numbers can dream, and how some dreams can develop into stable sharable physical realities, but with no need of ontological stuff.

[rf]  So, is that all predicated on you and I being carbon-water-based organisms able to generate and modify our own look-up tables

Universal numbers support universal number changing their own code and table. No need of water for this.

[rf]  I get the impression that you seem to just assume or imagine being able to WRITE immaterial code and symbols.  In my storyline,  water molecules are a bit like the symbols/paper tape upon which symbols are written. So to initialize the sp^3 hybridized energy pattern, at least, and to persist it, there is a need for water.

 

and adaptive action tapes as something that cannot or should not be happening?  Or have you never consider it or had it put in front of you?

I do, but all universal machines are confronted with this. You just need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science.

[rf]  Smarter people than me have already done so.  Where is the immaterial beef? 

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms. 

?   (I am saying that the axioms (mechanism) is confirmed. It makes no sense to say that a there is confirmed by having false axioms). 

You lost me here. We are not reasoning at the same level.

[rf] Where you say: """but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above""",   I look at the situation and suggest, sort of, "Your powers are weak old man" (from Star Wars...), meaning that   developing the mathematical/logical symbolic expression gets you the kinds of things it does, but it apparently cannot or does not or has not yet given a strong enough expression so ~you can grasp what is going on.  From my perspective that would take elevating nested structure and aiming closer to replicate or emulate all of the kinds of nested structural coding that we have going on in and around our atomic-molecular ontology.  

But all of those things don't make any sense within ~your numbers-logic rules since any mention of "atom" is likely only associable with materialism. 

Only if you assume that atoms are made of something primitively material, but there are no evidences for this. In fact there are never been any evidence for primitive matter. My derivation just shows that we could find indirect evidence for it, but the test does not (yet) show it. 

[rf]  Pardon my outburst, but I am assuming atoms are instances od nested structured~duality -- patterns; nested fields within nested fields. 

Another way to consider it is, to me, it seems  you are the one who also assumes that math/logic can or does model or can give accurate insights into human ~consciousness and/or ~self -- however it is said.  Even though we are unity-based beings, your logic is zero-based and thus a little be out of kilter. Not quite applicable to our ~systems. I suggest this is like trying to describe fire in terms of its smoke -- like thinking backwards.   When one gets down to having, let's say, a structurally coded internal representation of surroundings (with links to expression) then that is the system actually generating the externalized math/logic and physical law contents and expressions.    

I do not assume that math or logic can do this or that, because that is simple to derive from the Mechanist Hypothesis. Then the math shows that the machine has the means to understand that its local physics is necessary, and comes from the arithmetical relations, and that makes Mechanism testable. By assuming a *primitive* physical reality, you just put yourself in a position where we will not been able to study simpler hypothesis, and for no reason, because your argument seems to be based on a conception of machine which is no more tenable after Turing discovery of the universal machine, or Kleene’s discovery of the partial recursive functions. To me, the discovery of the universal machine is the biggest discovery made by humanity, even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines).

[rf] We think differently on this. Since I do not understand Turing machines or their significance, I'm not arguing with you. I would ask you, though,  to tweak your system so that it delivers physical intuition with a more terse instruction set. 

Apparently, you are enamoured with the math/standard logic accomplishments/discoveries likely because you are masterful in those expressions, and, for all I (don't) know you yourself are responsible for contributing to such discoveries which IS a big thing.  

In my ignorance of that, I observe "even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines)" and attempt to point out one analog modeling way to visualize  how nature does that hat trick in the tetrahedral, sp^3 hybridized carbon-water-based pattern system that we are ALL running.

You seem to suggest my approach might be validated if only I re-configure it in formal logic symbols whereas I am getting the impression that the proof is already in the pudding re: delivering physical intuition WITHOUT dropping down into the abstract math. 

       hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat.

Not at all. The duplicator existence is a theorem derivable from the axiom I gave. You just miss Gödel’s astounding achievement of the arithmetization of metamathematics. You are not alone, despite tuns of book, this is largely ignored, but it changes a lot the possible metaphysics/theology available when assuming Mechanism.

[rf] Which mechanism, though? 

I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that  what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding

I agree, but there could be a reason why. And the fact that we are emulate by a “machinery” does not make necessarily that “machinery” made of stuff, or being the most fundamental. 

With mechanism, it is very simple: ANY Turing universal machine is enough. The theology and the physics cannot depend on the choice of the ontological theory. Theology, which includes physics, becomes “machine-independent”, as the computer scientist says about laws about programs which does not depend on the chosen programming language or machine. 

[rf] Perhaps you are correct, but OTOH, "Who made you God?" -- perhaps you are not correct.  

[rf] Yes, okay, different instances of nested structured~duality.  But all of us here in the local region are running the carbon-water-based organism structural coding.  Again, I suggest it's more to do with specific structure (structured~duality)  than with mechanism.

That is possible. Many contingencies are in play in the computations in arithmetic. In the world where an asteroid did not fall on Earth some millions years ago, I am a dinosaur … Maybe there are worlds with a different Planck constant, etc. What is nice with mechanism is that we find the “absolute” physics which is the same for all universal machine, then consciousness differentiate on different histories.

[rf] It sounds like a rich instance. How likely is it, and realistically, how long would it take ~me as a 67 year old ex-civil engineer with low aptitude for math and logic  to learn and faithfully re-create ALL of your developments and contributions? 

and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.

If your theory doesn't have, yet have,  or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then   you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way. 

On the contrary, I am all for the testing. I predicted most quantum weirdness from the assumption of mechanism, but it took me a lot of years to get the quantum logics from pure math, and the test confirms all of them. As they are different, surely we can progress.

[rf] Not to subtract from your accomplishments, but I am still curious about how I can start with five water to align four rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron and get physical intuition on variable density multiple states. And then get more states by nesting structures -- without using much if any abstract math.

The problem is that you need math to make predictions, so that we can compare with other theories.

[rf]  Abstract math?  Even when the measures are terseness and  delivering physical intuition?

 

Then, my point illustrates that the alternative “materialism” is also tested, but get no confirmation. If you invoke a metaphysical reality, like a primitively material universe, it is up to you to present evidence. All what I show is that weak materialism (the belief in primary matter) and Mechanism, (the belief that consciousness is invariant for the digital local transplant) are not compatible (contrary to what atheist materialist often defend).

[rf]  Can you clarify or spread that out a bit more?

It is not obvious. I am describing a result which too many years of work, but you can get the gist of it by reading the argument in 8 steps in the sane04 paper(*).

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

[rf] Thanks. I will try to read through it again. 

That's still too complicated a statement for me to follow.   From my perspective I still say that you have still done all of what you say relying upon and using the carbon-water-basis ~tetrahedral-like structural coding.  

OK. But not in any fundamental way (or you have to prove this). There is no doubt that carbon is important, but with mechanism it is only necessary for our histories, or not, depending on your work or similar. Open problem. 

[rf] Ok, so does this mean there ARE different mechanisms, and differing descriptions or exemplars of the different mechanisms and so a model that had a short recipe yet delivered more consistent and more increments of physical intuition would be more effective than longer, less productive mechanisms? 

Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes    in a somewhat disruptive manner.

?

[rf] Once you acquire even an approximate, ~working  "internal model of consciousness", abstract math symbols and expressions  and logic structures become secondary devices. 

Math symbols and expressions are secondary in mathematics, but they become primary in the mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow. But consciousness is beyond symbols, even provably so with mechanism. Symbols are like bodies: their use is for relative communication, not for the things in itself. (Already in mathematics, but here I am aware that some people confuse mathematical theories (which uses symbols), and the mathematical reality (which does not use symbols).

[rf] I differ on that notion on symbols as primary in  "mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow".   Assume it is the day after the neuron model has been completely validated. Then you face that all your external symbols are still secondary to the primary internal structural coding (in the neural network, or in the cwb analog model, etc.,)

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

[rf] Don't see why - what?   

The 19th century did have a reductionist conception of machine. Since Gödel and Turing, we know that the universal machine are terrible unknown. I did not see why you said the sentence above, and I was suggesting you might use a reductionist conception of machines.

[rf] My impression is I am not following that approach. I've taken a different path through the woods.   I ~feel more like I am just taking the givens, choosing a different nested structured~duality  and  showing how to get a structured  internal representation of surroundings nested within our ontology. 

I may make reference to "machine", but I do more mean "organism" and one that is quite smeared out within our surroundings. 

From their first person conscious points of view, machines are quite smeared in the whole (non computable) arithmetical reality. I use organisms and mechanism mostly as synonymous. A machine/organism is anything working without magic, say.

[rf] How do you grade on level of synergy or on nesting or recursion levels? Are these the same or different mechanisms or classes of mechanism, to you?

[rf] Hey, thanks.  I appreciate the "on Earth, not in heaven" distinction to clarify a bit on "carbon-water-based" as a partial or temporary "training wheels", nesting  derivative.  I still see some sense in sp^3 hybridized ~energy patterns in both. 

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

[rf] I'm still not getting it.    Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix”? 

It is almost exactly that: except that we are in infinitely many Matrices at once. Then our consciousness will differentiate once the matrices differentiates on different inputs or oracle (possibly non computable inputs on which the arithmetical reality dovetails).

[rf] Nested fields within nested fields.    

Each time you say that, I think of the Mandelbrot set. Look at the video here which illustrates well the nesting in the nesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE.    (6 nesting)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJSPnF92N5E.   (3 nesting)

Note that such complex structure is entirely determined by a very simple equation: it is the domain of the cycling trajectories of the complex numbers z when iterating f(z) = z^2 + c, for all c in the rational-complex plane. It is an open problem if that set is Turing equivalent.

[rf] Each time I use that phrase I think of us bobbling along in the local solar fusion flux and variable mass density quantum gravity. 

  I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.

There vertical and horizontal nesting. Universal number mimicking universal numbers mimicking universal numbers etc. But with the self-reference you have universal numbers mimicking themselves (cf the video showing the game of life emulating the game of life), and circular “nestings”. 

[rf] Like sequences of DNA coding for  certain amino acid chains giving rise to catalytic or inhibitory enzymes?

Yes, and enzymes acting on the DNA, etc.

All the best,

Bruno

And Best Regards to you,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D. 

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...".  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning?   I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation. Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations, and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

Can you please clarify and explain?

Secondly,  your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions.  Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously.  Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each.    In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control  communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms...   All, quite imaginative.   After a while,  in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity.  The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for   being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.   

With that backstory, though,   perhaps that 'conditioning explains' some of my difficulty in following along with your proposed  arithmetical substitution storyline/metaphor.  ...Although, you may be aiming in some different direction.     In my storyline,  there doesn't appear to be any need for the digital comp or substitution level for the ~mental/~self translocation since that can just go "via the electromagnetic/analog resonance" somewhat by one's will.  Apparently, real yogiis or mystics can already do such  transitions, and have been able to do so for a long time.

But, like I say,  you may be aiming in some different direction -- memory/~self storage  and/or creating a comp control tech for charging a fee for mystic transactions as a service (MTAAS). Yes?

Thirdly, old business -- thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false.   Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies. Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality.  Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set".  Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD's.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider. 

Also, in your modeling I am wondering if there is one mechanism or many?   Also, is delivering physical intuition an alternate measure or demonstration of effectiveness of a model or theory -- alternate to, say, formal expression or Popper-like falsifiability -- particularly for models supporting both ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?

Best regards,

Ralph

[Bruno Marchal]

Ralph,

Did you get my answer to your last post? I am not sure I saw it, and I might send it again, or not, depending of this mail, which I will comment now (hoping it go through). Please, comment this online, and only if you get it online (as I send you privately too).

On 24 Jan 2018, at 07:19, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

OK. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...”.  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning? 

No. In fact, the arithmetical realism is already implicit in Church thesis. I added to make it clear, especially for philosopher of mathematics, which usually have much stronger form of realism (like set theoretical realism, which I don’t use at all), but many people add metaphysics which is not much present.  I use the same amount of arithmetical realism that the one use at the meta-level by all applied scientists. No architect would have some fear that when he will die, the building he build will collapse due to the fact that 1+1 would stop to be true after death. Taking any insurance policy witness some belief in this arithmetical realism. It looks more philosophical than it is really. I like to define an “arithmetical realist” by anyone who does not take his/her kids back from school when they are taught that there in greatest prime number (say). You need an infinitely big ego to believe that when you die the notion of prime number would lose its meaning.

Without arithmetical realism, it is just impossible to define what is a digital machine, or a partial computable functions, etc.

 I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation.

A separate category? I do not see what you mean. Separate from what? All theories brings some separation, between its objects of talk and other things.

Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Not at all. The whole point is that the computations can be proved to exist, once we assume 0, the successors, addition and multiplication, and by this I mean the assumptions (and nothing more, except classical logic (which by the way I assume for reason of simplicity: technically, for describing the basic ontology, I need only identify axioms (like x = x, x = y & y = z -> x = z, etc.). For the internal (to that ontology) epistemology or phenomenology I still need to assume the full classical logic, though.

After that, you can reason intuitively using comp, and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity which reflects themselves enough, a bit like in the reasoning in 8 step in sane04, or you can directly defined them (using the Classical Greek definition based on a notion of belief, in arithmetic, with belief translated by Gödel’s arithmetical beweisbar (provability) predicate. It is incompleteness which motivates this use of beweisbar, because provability (even by correct machine) behaves as a notion of belief (the machine cannot prove that []p -> p). ([]p abbreviates beweisbar(‘p’), with ‘p’ a number encoding of the arithmetical proposition p.

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations,

To believe in arithmetical relations *is* arithmetical realism.

Example: (Plutarch) All squared even number are equal to 1+ 8 triangular numbers. (The triangular numbers are the number 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, … (that is, the numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, …; 1+2+3+4 was the “famous” (among Pythagorean) Tetraktys).

You can solve that by algebra, or by drawing let us say the square of 5 or 7, reminding that a square is, well a square.

I was used to think that the only one who disbelieve in arithmetical realism are the ultrafinitists (who reject the idea that there is no greatest natural number). I know only two of them! And since then, I have realised that even the ultrafinitist believes in the right amount of arithmetic for the work to proceed. This is why I do not put the induction axiom in the ontology.

That is why I do no more assume it explicitly, and let it implicit in the use of Church's thesis (which is realist on the notion of computable functions). Sometimes, when we make explicit something obvious, people does not understand that we could assume something so obvious, and then they add metaphysics which is not there. If you agree that 2+3=3+2, and the same for any successors, you are already an arithmetical realist.

I just put all the cards on the table. 

and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

In the informal (yet deductive) argument I use only the invariance of consciousness for some substitution level. It is up to you and your doctor to choose an emulation at the level of the multicellular organism level, or at the quantum field level, run by an apple, or a banana or any other micro-universal machine that you can implement in the physical reality (but then it *is* “already” implemented in the arithmetical reality, relatively to an infinity of universal numbers.

The universal numbers/machine/words/theory/program can already refute all normative complete theory about them.

You look at the universal baby and you reduce it to the orders you give to him (like send this mail), but they are mathematical beings, and we can study mathematical the initial conversation we can have with them on themselves.

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

All humans are at the least, provably, extension of universal machine, and the theology concernes all the universal number/machine/belief and their consistent extensions.

I use fully Gödel’s technic of arithmetization of metamathematics, and indeed I use Löb and Solovay theorem which capture the propositional 3p science and theology by the modal logics G and G*.

Can you please clarify and explain?

I identify a person/machine with its (local) set of beliefs, and its knowledge with the intersection of that set with the truth.

The incompleteness theorem makes “provability” into a belief, not a knowledge. But we get a notion of knowledge by a local conjunct with truth.

That makes possible to “reapply” Theaetetus theory of knowledge. It refutes Socrates critics (and others). 

From outside, we use the semantic of arithmetic, and set theory if needed, and the numbers inside will have that freedom to.

Many ignore the discovery of the universal machine, and its rich self-referential logic, operating at different level.

My assumption of mechanism is low, in the sense that the substitution level is not bounded in advance. No universal machine can know its substitution level, but can make bet: being alive is being able to die, but conscious is different, it becomes a fixed point of the self-transformations.

Secondly,  your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions.  Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously.  Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each.    In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control  communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms...   All, quite imaginative.   After a while,  in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity.  The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for   being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.   

I do not know the truth, but unless you change the physical laws, or if you believe that consciousness reduce the wave packet in quantum physics, what I say derive from the assumption that I would survive through such substitution if made at some level. It assumes the existence of some level, and all levels known today are Turing emulable. It makes evolution theory more difficult, and actual brain theories more complex to nt assume such level, usually high in the neuroscience. My argument still work if the brain are shown being quantum computer, although I am agnostic on that question.

With arithmetic, with a bit of study, you can literally see that it is full of souls. There is a sort of Indra net of all universal histories, but the soul lives in a sort of limit of all histories, due to the first person indeterminacy (step 3).

With that backstory, though,   perhaps that 'conditioning explains' some of my difficulty in following along with your proposed  arithmetical substitution storyline/metaphor. 

It is not a metaphor. It has begun. Some are enthusiastic about that, like the transhumanists. The materialists tends to believe this is possible, and unavoidable in the very long run, but they are wrong on the nature of matter (the testable part).

...Although, you may be aiming in some different direction.     In my storyline,  there doesn't appear to be any need for the digital comp or substitution level for the ~mental/~self translocation since that can just go "via the electromagnetic/analog resonance" somewhat by one's will.  Apparently, real yogiis or mystics can already do such  transitions, and have been able to do so for a long time.

Looks like open problem in my frame of deduction. Certainly perhaps!

But, like I say,  you may be aiming in some different direction -- memory/~self storage  and/or creating a comp control tech for charging a fee for mystic transactions as a service (MTAAS). Yes?

Thirdly, old business -- thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false. 

It is more trees and related lattices. The key is a “Galois connection”: more axioms = less models, more models = less axioms. It is like in algebra: the more equation, the less the number of solutions.

 Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

It is like that at the non monotonically level, but I concentrate on ideal correct machine, much simpler than us. To derive physics, I need only the correct number. The part of the number which believe that their are Napoleon is negligible in arithmetic … 

I am a reasoner. I take very seriously both consciousness and the mechanist hypothesis. I thought I would get a contradiction, but I get only weirdness, even a quantum like form of weirdness where we expect matter to appear (in the 1p and 1p plural views). (Not in the 3p).

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies.

Hmm… I know that your goal is not to communicate, but prefer use the simple material needed to understand what is a (universal) machine or number. If you get a NSD explanation of the numbers or consciousness, publish it, or write a text. Just diagrams is not enough for me to see anything than a sort of appreciation of the number 3 and 4, which I share. 

Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality. 

?

Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

?

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set”. 

There are many nested structures. The Mandelbrot set is a typical set (of complex numbers) which illustrates a fundamental super form of self nesting. Each mini-brot copy its neighbourhood integrally 2, 4, 8, 16, … 2^n, …. Around itself! Yet, is “made” only of little Mandelbrot sets, making its fractal hausdorf dimension 2.

It could be a compact universal dovetailing, in which case it is “home”.

Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD’s.

You need to define NSD. But you might do idolatry for a structure. What is nice with mechanism is that we have the tools to reason independently of the mathematical structure chosen. 

I prefer to start from the simple. How would you explain the NSD to a kid?

I present results, verified by peers (and contested by people invoking conviction). My work is of the type: if you believe in this and this, then you have to believe in this and this, or invoke a god or magic. That is an error in science, even in the theological science. 

It is indeed illuminating to see how the self-observing machine, staying correct in the process, can already say about the subject.

I am amazed that a small set of reasonable beliefs leads quickly to making us doubting Aristotle, and making sense of Plato.

It is alas technical, today. 

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider. 

Also, in your modeling

It is not a modelling. It is an act of faith. I study the consequence of assuming that this act of faith is correct.

When you say yes for a prosthesis, it is not a model/theory, it is your life. 

But the consequences are the greater in metaphysics/ Plato is right and Aristotle is wrong. What we see is only the shadow of the universal mind, or cosmic consciousness. Many here seem to have that intuition. Then I show that all (Gödel-Löbian) universal machine share that intuition too, in a so precise way that we can test it, and so maybe test the present of some primary matter, also.

I am wondering if there is one mechanism or many? 

There one, and many one, and many. The universal numbers all plays the role of a “one”, with its Plotinian-like theology. But most machines re not universal, and among the universal the differentiation has a quite large spectrum.

All mechanism, or computable digital processes are implemented in the arithmetical reality. That is a theorem in computer science, that we have to take into account when assuming mechanism.

 Also, is delivering physical intuition an alternate measure or demonstration of effectiveness of a model or theory -- alternate to, say, formal expression or Popper-like falsifiability -- particularly for models supporting both ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?

It depends. When not doing the math, and the experiences, it becomes to look like a personal report, which might make sense for more people later, or not. 

You better always explain your ideas in term of the ideas the other are familiar with.

Kind regards,

Bruno

PS tell me if you did got my long post, if not I might or not resend it online. Hope you get this one!

Best regards,

Ralph

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLfLpwEj2epfDKgksng%2BZdTti2bXUEAmp4XDoSnUFn93fA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Hi, Bruno,

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 2:56:21 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Ralph,

Did you get my answer to your last post? I am not sure I saw it, and I might send it again, or not, depending of this mail, which I will comment now (hoping it go through). Please, comment this online, and only if you get it online (as I send you privately too).

[rf] No, I didn't get it or see it online. Mine was quite long due to the cumulative build-up and I think some of my prior  post was truncated by the forum software.  

On 24 Jan 2018, at 07:19, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

 

OK. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...”.  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning? 

No. In fact, the arithmetical realism is already implicit in Church thesis. I added to make it clear, especially for philosopher of mathematics, which usually have much stronger form of realism (like set theoretical realism, which I don’t use at all), but many people add metaphysics which is not much present.  I use the same amount of arithmetical realism that the one use at the meta-level by all applied scientists. No architect would have some fear that when he will die, the building he build will collapse due to the fact that 1+1 would stop to be true after death. Taking any insurance policy witness some belief in this arithmetical realism. It looks more philosophical than it is really. I like to define an “arithmetical realist” by anyone who does not take his/her kids back from school when they are taught that there in greatest prime number (say). You need an infinitely big ego to believe that when you die the notion of prime number would lose its meaning.

Without arithmetical realism, it is just impossible to define what is a digital machine, or a partial computable functions, etc.

OK.

 I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation.

A separate category? I do not see what you mean. Separate from what? All theories brings some separation, between its objects of talk and other things.

[rf] I believe I mean something like all the artifacts, traits and relations in arithmetic realism  are in one instance of NSD, which is (to be independent), separate from all the artifacts, traits and relations in  "me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists)" which is in a different instance of NSD. In this case, as I read your sub-hypothesis#3, AR is in one 'bubble'  or category and "me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists)" and our traits and relations are in a different, separate 'bubble' or category.    Thus trits like 1pp, knowing, dreaming... is not in the AR category.

Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Not at all. The whole point is that the computations can be proved to exist, once we assume 0, the successors, addition and multiplication, and by this I mean the assumptions (and nothing more, except classical logic (which by the way I assume for reason of simplicity: technically, for describing the basic ontology, I need only identify axioms (like x = x, x = y & y = z -> x = z, etc.). For the internal (to that ontology) epistemology or phenomenology I still need to assume the full classical logic, though.

After that, you can reason intuitively using comp, and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity which reflects themselves enough, a bit like in the reasoning in 8 step in sane04, or you can directly defined them (using the Classical Greek definition based on a notion of belief, in arithmetic, with belief translated by Gödel’s arithmetical beweisbar (provability) predicate. It is incompleteness which motivates this use of beweisbar, because provability (even by correct machine) behaves as a notion of belief (the machine cannot prove that []p -> p). ([]p abbreviates beweisbar(‘p’), with ‘p’ a number encoding of the arithmetical proposition p.

[rf] Seriously?   First or all, are you saying that you cannot see or recognize the point or question I am trying to express?

Secondly, where in your stack is, say,  some axiom pattern or expression n  "is" exactly equal to  (or assumed or associated as)  "dreaming", or to "1st person perspective"?

Or is that sort of thing already pre-embedded in your stack of assumptions, as in the classical logic structure or entangled within "reflection" or "provability", and you just continue to assume the association between the comp/logic patterns and the various ~human/physical reality traits and relations? 

Thirdly, it looks ot me like your accomplish this "sleight of mind" in your process in your statement of "...and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity...".   That is, you use the word "attributing", whereas I would say the action is "assuming" or "assigning" or "associating", so, from my current perspective, you do just blur or violate the alleged "independence", albeit, perhaps subconsciously or mesmeristically, within your instance. 

I will endeavor to continue reading SANE04 and try to get through  the steps, but your explanation here of  "...attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity...", to me, clinches the issue.  ~You simply assume the blur and cross-over or it's already pre-embedded in your body of lore.

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations,

To believe in arithmetical relations *is* arithmetical realism.

Example: (Plutarch) All squared even number are equal to 1+ 8 triangular numbers. (The triangular numbers are the number 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, … (that is, the numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, …; 1+2+3+4 was the “famous” (among Pythagorean) Tetraktys).

You can solve that by algebra, or by drawing let us say the square of 5 or 7, reminding that a square is, well a square.

I was used to think that the only one who disbelieve in arithmetical realism are the ultrafinitists (who reject the idea that there is no greatest natural number). I know only two of them! And since then, I have realised that even the ultrafinitist believes in the right amount of arithmetic for the work to proceed. This is why I do not put the induction axiom in the ontology.

That is why I do no more assume it explicitly, and let it implicit in the use of Church's thesis (which is realist on the notion of computable functions). Sometimes, when we make explicit something obvious, people does not understand that we could assume something so obvious, and then they add metaphysics which is not there. If you agree that 2+3=3+2, and the same for any successors, you are already an arithmetical realist.

I just put all the cards on the table. 

[rf] Maybe you are leading me, as a blind, dumb donkey to the watering hole,   however, so far, I am pretty sure my complaint or question is not with  arithmetical relations or arithmetical realism. At this point my quibble is more like with what I consider   this moment as ~your 'mis-applied arithmetical realism'. Or more specifically ~your or comp's apparent assignments of non-AR traits to AR relations, which, to me looks like a violation of your sub-hypothesis#3.

Perhaps what's needed is a work-around or extension to add Subconscious Step 0 which says, feel free to attribute/associate consciousness and any other human/physical realitytraits to arithmetical entities while pretending or denying not doing that.

Also, as an aside, FWIW, I would like to point out that  2+3 = 3+2 is yet another instance of NSD where we agree on, in this case, the lack of change with a change is structure. What would that be:  Commutation is nested structured~duality? (As are mathematics and mathematical physics, etc.)

and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

In the informal (yet deductive) argument I use only the invariance of consciousness for some substitution level. It is up to you and your doctor to choose an emulation at the level of the multicellular organism level, or at the quantum field level, run by an apple, or a banana or any other micro-universal machine that you can implement in the physical reality (but then it *is* “already” implemented in the arithmetical reality, relatively to an infinity of universal numbers.

[rf] You assume "invariance of consciousness for some substitution level" only after you take your unstated Subconscious Step 0.  That is, ~your prior statement ~was something like: "There is invariance of arithmetical relations at various levels."    That's just the AR talk and I sort of follow that (or accept it).   But then you invoke Subconscious Step 0 and swap in "consciousness" for "arithmetical relations", I'm saying,  violating your initial "independence" condition in the Sub-hypothesis#3. 

Now, from within my NSD storyline, I am observing that you are sort of forced to make this mis-step because you don't have a model of "consciousness", yet ~you ~know that you being a human, you must already be using one functional model and you can therefore just or must assume and apply human traits (breaking your independence rule) and that's okay and something almost everyone else will also follow along with in your guided visualization, because for almost everyone, including you, ~consciousness is an unknown.  That fact, though,   would change your statement to something like "invariance of unknowns for some substitution level".

But, that's not actually too  pleasant a statement and is not that correct since you arrive ~here with "invariance of arithmetical relations for some substitution level".  So, faced with the conflict, you double-down on substitution levels and you drag in "consciousness", violating your independence boundary, and you substitute it for "arithmetical relations" and you continue on.  

In the NSD storyline, I guess the statement might be more like "invariance of  nested structural coding  for some substitution level within the overall nested structured~duality" or maybe just "invariance of nested structured~duality" or invariance of nested structural coding, but my impression is these are not quite true within your storyline, and probably they can't just be inserted since these develop within an entirely  different instance of nested structured~duality.   

That is, in the NSD  model, let's say there are at least three nested levels of organization: energetic vibrations structurally coding a representation in water molecules in respiration reaction influencing hydrogen-bonding adjustments of alignments of synapses within and among neurons while concurrently collecting energy flow and structurally coding replacement and (carbon-based) energy conservation structures (enzymes, etc.) according to certain (nested) genetic and epigenetic templates. Energy collection and representation run synergistically, deeply nested within the enfolding levels of nested structured~duality  --  like a fields of blades of grass held protectively, say, within the hand of God and/or the enfolding Spirit.  

    The universal numbers/machine/words/theory/program can already refute all normative complete theory about them.

[rf]   You say this, AFTER invoking Subconscious Step 0 and while building your expressions via the internal nested structural coding.   I'm not doubting that you can develop very helpful; and sophisticated mathematical models. In your storyline, though, I observe you assuming and ~perhaps achieving, say, the modeling goal of representation. What you might term "consciousness", or 1pp, 3pp,, knowing, dreaming...  but I am not observing that your three (or four) sub-hypotheses support  or can achieve deeply nested synergistic energy collection/flow and representation together which is what we are actually all running. 

    You look at the universal baby and you reduce it to the orders you give to him (like send this mail), but they are        mathematical beings, and we can study mathematical the initial conversation we can have with them on themselves.

[rf] In PHP I can and have used the mail(); function to send emails. But I am sending a structurally coded signal to resonant (mostly tetrahedral) energized silicon that's already pre-configured in a deeply nested structural coding.  Okay. I somewhat relate but I notice what I consider is a difference, again, referring back to the Subconscious Step 0 that I observe you are invoking, and considering that it appears like you and Von Neumann rely upon the fundamental nested structure but fail epically to acknowledge it.

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

All humans are at the least, provably, extension of universal machine, and the theology concernes all the universal number/machine/belief and their consistent extensions.

[rf] I say, again, given your Subconscious Step 0.

I use fully Gödel’s technic of arithmetization of metamathematics, and indeed I use Löb and Solovay theorem which capture the propositional 3p science and theology by the modal logics G and G*.

[rf] Do you men you concurr with others who have previously also invoked Subconscious Step 0 when building associations between arithmetical relations and  me, you, humanity and phsycial reality?

Can you please clarify and explain?

I identify a person/machine with its (local) set of beliefs, and its knowledge with the intersection of that set with the truth.

[rf] So, you believe in comp. What about what is in or missing from  your blindspot?

The incompleteness theorem makes “provability” into a belief, not a knowledge. But we get a notion of knowledge by a local conjunct with truth.

[rf]  Or... we get the incompleteness theorem that makes "provability" into a belief, not a knowledge, because that storyline on truth lacks appreciation of reality being nested structured~duality.

That makes possible to “reapply” Theaetetus theory of knowledge. It refutes Socrates critics (and others). 

[rf] By "reapply",  I notice you going to the nested structure well again, wearing your blindfold.

From outside, we use the semantic of arithmetic, and set theory if needed, and the numbers inside will have that freedom to.

[rf] Inside, outside, semantic... more un-sub-conscious nested structured~duality. 

Many ignore the discovery of the universal machine, and its rich self-referential logic, operating at different level.

[rf] Self-referential...   different level...    so it comes as no surprise to observe nested structured~duality   is universal machine and vise versa.

My assumption of mechanism is low, in the sense that the substitution level is not bounded in advance. No universal machine can know its substitution level, but can make bet: being alive is being able to die, but conscious is different, it becomes a fixed point of the self-transformations.

[rf]  Substitution level?   Substitution level of what?  Is your answer "physical reality"? "Nested fields within nested fields"? "Spiritual existence"? "Soul"?

Secondly,  your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions.  Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously.  Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each.    In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control  communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms...   All, quite imaginative.   After a while,  in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity.  The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for   being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.   

I do not know the truth, but unless you change the physical laws, or if you believe that consciousness reduce the wave packet in quantum physics, what I say derive from the assumption that I would survive through such substitution if made at some level. It assumes the existence of some level, and all levels known today are Turing emulable. It makes evolution theory more difficult, and actual brain theories more complex to nt assume such level, usually high in the neuroscience. My argument still work if the brain are shown being quantum computer, although I am agnostic on that question.

[rf] But not agnostic on comp?

With arithmetic, with a bit of study, you can literally see that it is full of souls. There is a sort of Indra net of all universal histories, but the soul lives in a sort of limit of all histories, due to the first person indeterminacy (step 3).

[rf] After invoking Subconscious Step 0.  Arithmetic is one path, good for some people.  

With that backstory, though,   perhaps that 'conditioning explains' some of my difficulty in following along with your proposed  arithmetical substitution storyline/metaphor. 

It is not a metaphor. It has begun. Some are enthusiastic about that, like the transhumanists. The materialists tends to believe this is possible, and unavoidable in the very long run, but they are wrong on the nature of matter (the testable part).

[rf] Okay, if not metaphor would you prefer  nested substitutions, or just another instance of nested structured~duality?

...Although, you may be aiming in some different direction.     In my storyline,  there doesn't appear to be any need for the digital comp or substitution level for the ~mental/~self translocation since that can just go "via the electromagnetic/analog resonance" somewhat by one's will.  Apparently, real yogiis or mystics can already do such  transitions, and have been able to do so for a long time.

Looks like open problem in my frame of deduction. Certainly perhaps!

Yes, I agree on the openness problem.

But, like I say,  you may be aiming in some different direction -- memory/~self storage  and/or creating a comp control tech for charging a fee for mystic transactions as a service (MTAAS). Yes?

Thirdly, old business -- thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false. 

It is more trees and related lattices. The key is a “Galois connection”: more axioms = less models, more models = less axioms. It is like in algebra: the more equation, the less the number of solutions.

[rf] You mean, as in if nested structure level is like 30 or 3000 then, we get the physics stories  of  the improbable/rare set of conditions  that permit life to be like it is?

 Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

It is like that at the non monotonically level, but I concentrate on ideal correct machine, much simpler than us. To derive physics, I need only the correct number. The part of the number which believe that their are Napoleon is negligible in arithmetic … 

~Ok.

I am a reasoner. I take very seriously both consciousness and the mechanist hypothesis. I thought I would get a contradiction, but I get only weirdness, even a quantum like form of weirdness where we expect matter to appear (in the 1p and 1p plural views). (Not in the 3p).

[rf] But what does happen?   Does the weirdness seem to you to be unending or increasing?   What does it indicate to you that you expect contradiction but get weirdness?

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies.

Hmm… I know that your goal is not to communicate, but prefer use the simple material needed to understand what is a (universal) machine or number. If you get a NSD explanation of the numbers or consciousness, publish it, or write a text. Just diagrams is not enough for me to see anything than a sort of appreciation of the number 3 and 4, which I share. 

[rf] Pardon me. Not that it may help, but what I was trying to say is, okay, I see and apply the pattern of 1) pick a structure; 2) pick a duality 3) build outward to limits as ~universal. Then I apply that to my crude idea of logic and estimate logic picks structure of a list and duality as true-false (where you folks look at statements and assess whether each is true or false). So the "structure/duality" of logic is "list/true-false", according to me.  Then in situations like "This sentence is false", it appears to me that the user is rather directly inserting the (primary duality) assessment criteria ("false") into the  statement in the assessment system and therein creating the ~anomaly of a contradiction, which ( I am sort of guessing) violates a rule in NSD meaning NSD would predict the contradiction just from the statement (...assuming the "do not double-up on the NSD instance's duality or you'll get a contradiction" rule holds).  In the regular, non-NSD perspective folks are not considering the underlying structured~duality pattern and thus are unable to notice such patterns. 

Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality. 

?

[rf] ...Maybe re-read this passage a couple of times while provisionally imagining "nested structured~duality   is the previously unnoticed and  unnamed underlying general principle".

Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

?

This is like how the scientific method  works and advances itself riding on its anomalies. When the paradigm is slightly flawed, strange things (your weirdnesses, perhaps) start accumulating, where the anomalous data/observation typically prompt for shifting to a different level of perspcetive (transcend; move inward...). For instance, Madam Curie's photographic plates mysteriously developing images   in a closed lab drawer nearby to some radioactive pitchblend.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set”. 

There are many nested structures. The Mandelbrot set is a typical set (of complex numbers) which illustrates a fundamental super form of self nesting. Each mini-brot copy its neighbourhood integrally 2, 4, 8, 16, … 2^n, …. Around itself! Yet, is “made” only of little Mandelbrot sets, making its fractal hausdorf dimension 2.

It could be a compact universal dovetailing, in which case it is “home”.

Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD’s.

You need to define NSD. But you might do idolatry for a structure. What is nice with mechanism is that we have the tools to reason independently of the mathematical structure chosen. 

[rf] NSD = nested structured~duality. Pick a structure; pick a duality (or pick a couple of dualities/differences); build outward to the limits of those initial conditions; rinse and repeat -- nest the structured dualities. 

[rf] If you or I pick idolatry as structure, what is the complementary, helpful or necessary pick for the duality? Rules are rules so it's pick a structure AND a duality.  It's an offhand  guess on my part, but  I think idolatry is not a structure but is already an NSD or some type of conglomerate.    

[rf] I will try to stay open to the niceties of mechanism and I am vaguely aware of the importance and strength of abstract mathematical modeling even though I am inept at it.  But with my present closed-world mechanism, I also observe that ALL of ALL our expressions are riding on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized   cwb (carbon-water-based) internal nested structural coding and we forge and store and cipher in those ~chemically completed creations.  And, somehow, structurally coding via these ~tetrahedral patterns allows mathematicians and logicians to reason and cipher and express in the great variety of ways that they do.  

I prefer to start from the simple. How would you explain the NSD to a kid?

[rf] 1) Hold a magnetic tetrahedron in  hands with eyes closed or imagine holding one (https://magnetictetrahedra.com/phpshow.php (advance  to the right image)). Give or imagine giving each of the four magnets one-half spin end-for-end in succession. On each step, use the probe magnet to feel the polarity (attraction or repulsion) at the four outer vertices (magnet ends). Count and name the different states. Count and name the different states. Repeat a couple of times with eyes open (or closed).  3) Place, the n2s2 unit in a cubic cardboard or plexiglas box with vertices always at the same four corners of the cube. Use the probe magnet to determine the location of the two attractive vertices. Re-orient those vertices in as many ways as you can and count the different states.  Repeat with the other  states identified in step 1. The structured~duality of this instance is "tetrahedron/north-south (or attraction-repulsion).  3) Imagine repeating with octahedron and other regular polyhedra for structure.   

I present results, verified by peers (and contested by people invoking conviction). My work is of the type: if you believe in this and this, then you have to believe in this and this, or invoke a god or magic. That is an error in science, even in the theological science. 

[rf] What is it that you say is an error in science and theological science?

It is indeed illuminating to see how the self-observing machine, staying correct in the process, can already say about the subject.

[rf] Ignoring "self-observing" or assigning it as a feature of the Subconscious Step 0,  I can sort of relate (see the above description for showing NSD to a kid).  Although I might say today that the mechanism of a magnetic tetrahedron unfolds to show nested structured~duality  and NSD-related variable mass density multiple states, nad sp^3 hybridized structural coding, etc.   But, in my view, it (this mechanism) does so due to the specific instance of nested structured~duality (tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion).

I am amazed that a small set of reasonable beliefs leads quickly to making us doubting Aristotle, and making sense of Plato.

It is alas technical, today. 

[rf] Why do you suppose it is so technical, today, in the storyline you present?

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider. 

Also, in your modeling

It is not a modelling. It is an act of faith. I study the consequence of assuming that this act of faith is correct.

When you say yes for a prosthesis, it is not a model/theory, it is your life. 

[rf] Maybe I am wrong, but I get the impression you have not pulled the trigger yet except to repeat the expressions  and hypothesize a plausible or potential comp possibility that you find interesting.  Me, after noticing the floating or potential  Subconscious Step 0 in the mix, so far I'm leery and skittish and will hold back, awaiting positive and consistent reports of increased bliss and happiness of a large number of early adopters. 

But the consequences are the greater in metaphysics/ Plato is right and Aristotle is wrong. What we see is only the shadow of the universal mind, or cosmic consciousness. Many here seem to have that intuition. Then I show that all (Gödel-Löbian) universal machine share that intuition too, in a so precise way that we can test it, and so maybe test the present of some primary matter, also.

[rf]  And so, we wait.   

I am wondering if there is one mechanism or many? 

There one, and many one, and many. The universal numbers all plays the role of a “one”, with its Plotinian-like theology. But most machines re not universal, and among the universal the differentiation has a quite large spectrum.

All mechanism, or computable digital processes are implemented in the arithmetical reality. That is a theorem in computer science, that we have to take into account when assuming mechanism.

[rf] So, there are many mechanisms.      But when you say, "when assuming mechanism", isn't that being a bit circular?  I don't know if my approach is any different.  I ~assume  or assert "reality is nested structured~duality" then fashion an analog mechanism (magnetic tetrahedron) that provides physical intuition on states and variable mass density, and ~the or ~a dominant  pattern of  our ontology and surroundings, and coding of our representations of our ontology and surroundings, etc.,  and then I learn/discover that it's a mechanism -- but that seems a bit superfluous or unnecessary along the storyline I advocate.  

 Also, is delivering physical intuition an alternate measure or demonstration of effectiveness of a model or theory -- alternate to, say, formal expression or Popper-like falsifiability -- particularly for models supporting both ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?

It depends. When not doing the math, and the experiences, it becomes to look like a personal report, which might make sense for more people later, or not. 

You better always explain your ideas in term of the ideas the other are familiar with.

Kind regards,

Bruno

[rf]  I think I could flippantly and somewhat accurately say, "I did the (analog) math in my head (or it did me).",although I really externalized the analog math and it taught me. Otherwise, I  suggest my expressions are  like an echo or magnetized or energized translation of relations and expressions presented by R. Buckminster Fuller in the last century. However, I understand what you mean and I deeply appreciate that and all of your other kind and informative advice. I will endeavor to improve.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

PS tell me if you did got my long post, if not I might or not resend it online. Hope you get this one!

[rf] Nothing yet.   I will go back to making my way through steps in SANE04. 

Best regards,

Ralph

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Ralph,

On 25 Jan 2018, at 16:24, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Bruno,

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 2:56:21 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Ralph,

Did you get my answer to your last post? I am not sure I saw it, and I might send it again, or not, depending of this mail, which I will comment now (hoping it go through). Please, comment this online, and only if you get it online (as I send you privately too).

[rf] No, I didn't get it or see it online. Mine was quite long due to the cumulative build-up and I think some of my prior  post was truncated by the forum software.  

OK. I will just comment here. Hope this will pass.

On 24 Jan 2018, at 07:19, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

 

OK. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...”.  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning? 

No. In fact, the arithmetical realism is already implicit in Church thesis. I added to make it clear, especially for philosopher of mathematics, which usually have much stronger form of realism (like set theoretical realism, which I don’t use at all), but many people add metaphysics which is not much present.  I use the same amount of arithmetical realism that the one use at the meta-level by all applied scientists. No architect would have some fear that when he will die, the building he build will collapse due to the fact that 1+1 would stop to be true after death. Taking any insurance policy witness some belief in this arithmetical realism. It looks more philosophical than it is really. I like to define an “arithmetical realist” by anyone who does not take his/her kids back from school when they are taught that there in greatest prime number (say). You need an infinitely big ego to believe that when you die the notion of prime number would lose its meaning.

Without arithmetical realism, it is just impossible to define what is a digital machine, or a partial computable functions, etc.

OK.

OK. Good. I get often the advise of not trying to explain computationalism and its consequence to people who have a problem with 2+2 = 4, of with there is no biggest prime, or that the square of an odd number is 1 added to 8 triangular numbers, or things like that. 

Then, there is something which annoy some number theorists (but not all, like Manin which includes recursion theory in number theory), which is that a number can be used as a symbol, and number can talk and dream about themselves. This judicially called intensional arithmetic, the extensional one being the usual Number Theory. Recursion theory is computability and uncomputability theory. The theory of degrees of unsolvability. The computable is a tiny (but important) part of arithmetic.

 I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation.

A separate category? I do not see what you mean. Separate from what? All theories brings some separation, between its objects of talk and other things.

[rf] I believe I mean something like all the artifacts, traits and relations in arithmetic realism  are in one instance of NSD, which is (to be independent), separate from all the artifacts, traits and relations in  "me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists)" which is in a different instance of NSD. In this case, as I read your sub-hypothesis#3, AR is in one 'bubble'  or category and "me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists)" and our traits and relations are in a different, separate 'bubble' or category.    Thus trits like 1pp, knowing, dreaming... is not in the AR category.

AR is the beiieve in the (unbounded) table of addition and multiplication, etc. I don’t understand what you mean by “AR category”.

All the rest will follow from the Turing universality of elementary arithmetic. 

99% of this was proved for the first time by Gödel 1931. Turing, Kleene, Church, Tarski, and others will make clear where the incompleteness come from. The presence of a universal machine. Those theories are essentially undecidable, which means that not only they are undecidable, but all their consistent extensions (machines or non-machines) are undecidable.

Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Not at all. The whole point is that the computations can be proved to exist, once we assume 0, the successors, addition and multiplication, and by this I mean the assumptions (and nothing more, except classical logic (which by the way I assume for reason of simplicity: technically, for describing the basic ontology, I need only identify axioms (like x = x, x = y & y = z -> x = z, etc.). For the internal (to that ontology) epistemology or phenomenology I still need to assume the full classical logic, though.

After that, you can reason intuitively using comp, and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity which reflects themselves enough, a bit like in the reasoning in 8 step in sane04, or you can directly defined them (using the Classical Greek definition based on a notion of belief, in arithmetic, with belief translated by Gödel’s arithmetical beweisbar (provability) predicate. It is incompleteness which motivates this use of beweisbar, because provability (even by correct machine) behaves as a notion of belief (the machine cannot prove that []p -> p). ([]p abbreviates beweisbar(‘p’), with ‘p’ a number encoding of the arithmetical proposition p.

[rf] Seriously?   First or all, are you saying that you cannot see or recognize the point or question I am trying to express?

Which human traits? Obviously, if you survive with a digital brain, it means that your consciousness is preserve, with all your human traits intacts, by definition.

I don’t claim that computationalism is true. I study its consequences and I show them testable, and indeed I show them fitting quite well with Everett/Feynman formulation of quantum mechanics, until now.

Secondly, where in your stack is, say,  some axiom pattern or expression n  "is" exactly equal to  (or assumed or associated as)  "dreaming", or to "1st person perspective”?

Consider the brain of someone doing a dream. With mechanism, this is equivalent with some physical process emulation a digital computation, which is equivalent with a universal transformation leading to a sequence of steps, relatively coded into numbers. 

If some primary matter plays some role in the presence of consciousness, then the mechanist hypothesis is false. So with mechanism, you have to attribute consciousness to all sequences of numbers which are related by some universal number, and I call such sequence a dream. Keep in mind this is natural given that we *assume* mechanism. If only to get a contradiction so that we can abandon it, but until now we get quantum weirdness and the embryo of the quantum formalism (yet with the qualia/quanta difference justified by the machine). To define the knower, or the first person, I use the fact that incompleteness refutes Socrates refutation of Theaetetus. It simply work, and associate canonically a first person to the self-referentially correct universal machine.

Or is that sort of thing already pre-embedded in your stack of assumptions,

My assumptions can be summed up with YD + CT.

YD = Yes doctor, and is the willingness to conceive we could survive a physical digital brain implant, emulating the brain/body at some level of description (be it superstrings or neuronal).

as in the classical logic structure or entangled within "reflection" or "provability", and you just continue to assume the association between the comp/logic patterns and the various ~human/physical reality traits and relations? 

I really don’t understand. I assume that the brain and body are Turing emulable. Automatically that gives human traits to a machine. 

Would be glad if a restaurant forbid to someone to enter, or refuse to give food to someone, under the pretext that he has survived a digital brain transplantation? Will you consider that it has become a (philosophical) zombie? Or do you think that this is impossible, at all possible level of description, making us into a special analog machines which needs the infinities of decimals to do its work? Even this, mathematically will lead to difficulties with respect to relating first and third person views. But mechanism is simpler, and it works (until now).

Thirdly, it looks ot me like your accomplish this "sleight of mind" in your process in your statement of "...and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity...”. 

Then you are charge to explain how a universal machine could distinguish if she is run by a physical machine or by arithmetic, by introspection.

I explain that if the machine is genuinely in relation with some “physical reality”, or in an emulation, can be tested.

 That is, you use the word "attributing", whereas I would say the action is "assuming" or "assigning" or "associating", so, from my current perspective, you do just blur or violate the alleged "independence", albeit, perhaps subconsciously or mesmeristically, within your instance. 

With the mundane consciousness of the others, we always attribute, but in reality assume, associate, etc. But mechanism makes it just clear: we assume a level of description such that we survive, in the usual clinical sense, a digital brain prosthesis. 

I will endeavor to continue reading SANE04 and try to get through  the steps, but your explanation here of  "...attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity…",

That will be in step seven and eight. It needs you to understand the difference between a theory and a model in the sense of the logician, and which I prefer to call a reality, like the reality of the structure (N, 0, +, *), what the logician calls the “standard model of arithmetic”, and which is what is taught implicitly in primary school.

to me, clinches the issue.  ~You simply assume the blur and cross-over or it's already pre-embedded in your body of lore.

I assume a digital version of Descartes Mechanism, in the UDA (the Universal Dovetailer Argument, in 8 steps).

Then I translate somehow UDA is arithmetic, using Gödel’s technic, and, mainly Solovay theorem, which capture a large part of the machine “theology”.

The theology appears in the mind of the universal machine when they grasp the abyss between computer science and computer’s computer science. 

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations,

To believe in arithmetical relations *is* arithmetical realism.

Example: (Plutarch) All squared even number are equal to 1+ 8 triangular numbers. (The triangular numbers are the number 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, … (that is, the numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, …; 1+2+3+4 was the “famous” (among Pythagorean) Tetraktys).

You can solve that by algebra, or by drawing let us say the square of 5 or 7, reminding that a square is, well a square.

I was used to think that the only one who disbelieve in arithmetical realism are the ultrafinitists (who reject the idea that there is no greatest natural number). I know only two of them! And since then, I have realised that even the ultrafinitist believes in the right amount of arithmetic for the work to proceed. This is why I do not put the induction axiom in the ontology.

That is why I do no more assume it explicitly, and let it implicit in the use of Church's thesis (which is realist on the notion of computable functions). Sometimes, when we make explicit something obvious, people does not understand that we could assume something so obvious, and then they add metaphysics which is not there. If you agree that 2+3=3+2, and the same for any successors, you are already an arithmetical realist.

I just put all the cards on the table. 

[rf] Maybe you are leading me, as a blind, dumb donkey to the watering hole, 

Hmm… OK. 

 however, so far, I am pretty sure my complaint or question is not with  arithmetical relations or arithmetical realism. At this point my quibble is more like with what I consider   this moment as ~your 'mis-applied arithmetical realism’.

If you agree with “there is no biggest prime number”, you believe already in PA, which will play the role of the observer in the arithmetical reality. PA is indeed a Löbian machine, and RA will mimic it to, despite never becoming PA itself, except as consistent extensions. 

Here I relied on the work of the mathematical logicians, would discovered that universal machine, or creative set (Emil Post). 

I “discovered” this in biology. I have study the theology of the amoeba before recognising it in arithmetic. 

Or more specifically ~your or comp's apparent assignments of non-AR traits

Non AR traits? You seem to assume non-mechanism. If you survive with a digital brain, you associate indeed human traits to AR traits, in some sense. The doctor will digitalise you, and for some moment, “you” will “be” a number stored in a computer, before having a working engram/program.

to AR relations, which, to me looks like a violation of your sub-hypothesis#3.

sub-hypothesis#3.?

Forget AR, it is needed anyway in CT. Comp is YD + CT. CT is Church-Turing, or Church’s thesis (Kleene).

Perhaps what's needed is a work-around or extension to add Subconscious Step 0 which says, feel free to attribute/associate consciousness and any other human/physical realitytraits to arithmetical entities while pretending or denying not doing that.

Step 0 is computationalism. It is not subconscious. What lacks in YD + CT.   (CT makes no sense with AR)

Also, as an aside, FWIW, I would like to point out that  2+3 = 3+2 is yet another instance of NSD

Really? Well honestly I hope it. The contrary would mean that you NSD is not Turing universal, and would fail to explain, well, elementary arithmetic.

where we agree on, in this case, the lack of change with a change is structure. What would that be:  Commutation is nested structured~duality? (As are mathematics and mathematical physics, etc.)

?

(You loss me. You might define precisely each term, and proves your statement)

and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

In the informal (yet deductive) argument I use only the invariance of consciousness for some substitution level. It is up to you and your doctor to choose an emulation at the level of the multicellular organism level, or at the quantum field level, run by an apple, or a banana or any other micro-universal machine that you can implement in the physical reality (but then it *is* “already” implemented in the arithmetical reality, relatively to an infinity of universal numbers.

[rf] You assume "invariance of consciousness for some substitution level" only after you take your unstated Subconscious Step 0. 

?

That is, ~your prior statement ~was something like: "There is invariance of arithmetical relations at various levels.” 

I do not talk about an invariance of arithmetical relations. They are true of false. Provable or not provable by machine x or y.

Only the invariance of consciousness for a digital brain transplantation done at some level of description.

I could not use Church thesis, but it takes things much smooth, with a ready answer for the critics like “what if we are not that type of machines”, as with CT it will works on all type of machines, and the theology will be universal-machine-independent.

  That's just the AR talk and I sort of follow that (or accept it).

Thans for reassuring me again.

   But then you invoke Subconscious Step 0 and swap in "consciousness" for "arithmetical relations”,

Because the notion of computations is arithmetical.

I think that this is what you seem to be not aware of. 

Chapter 4 of the (already ancient) book on computability (and unsolvability), by Martin Davis (Dover book) gives a thoroughly, of course rather long, definition of a Turing machine, and its computations, in elementary arithmetic. It is very well known by the logicians. 

I'm saying,  violating your initial "independence" condition in the Sub-hypothesis#3. 

The sub hypothesis#3 is the shoulder of the giants I walk on. Yes, it is utterly crazy, but you don’t need more hypothesis to prove the existence of the machines and of  their computations than to prove the existence of the prime numbers.

It is not obvious. It required Gödel. Today we know that even just one Diophantine Polynomial of degree four is enough (but that is another story).

Now, from within my NSD storyline, I am observing that you are sort of forced to make this mis-step because you don't have a model of "consciousness”,

I don’t need one, and a theory of consciousness emerge in the discourse of the self-referentially correct machine which observes itself.

The UDA is build so that we don’t need any theory of consciousness to understand the reversal. Only that it is invariant for some physical digital transformation. The rest follows by reasoning and computer science/mathematical logic.

yet ~you ~know that you being a human, you must already be using one functional model and you can therefore just or must assume and apply human traits (breaking your independence rule) and that's okay and something almost everyone else will also follow along with in your guided visualization, because for almost everyone, including you, ~consciousness is an unknown.  That fact, though,   would change your statement to something like "invariance of unknowns for some substitution level".

But, that's not actually too  pleasant a statement and is not that correct since you arrive ~here with "invariance of arithmetical relations for some substitution level".  So, faced with the conflict, you double-down on substitution levels and you drag in "consciousness", violating your independence boundary, and you substitute it for "arithmetical relations" and you continue on.  

In the NSD storyline, I guess the statement might be more like "invariance of  nested structural coding  for some substitution level within the overall nested structured~duality" or maybe just "invariance of nested structured~duality" or invariance of nested structural coding, but my impression is these are not quite true within your storyline, and probably they can't just be inserted since these develop within an entirely  different instance of nested structured~duality.   

That is, in the NSD  model, let's say there are at least three nested levels of organization: energetic vibrations structurally coding a representation in water molecules in respiration reaction influencing hydrogen-bonding adjustments of alignments of synapses within and among neurons while concurrently collecting energy flow and structurally coding replacement and (carbon-based) energy conservation structures (enzymes, etc.) according to certain (nested) genetic and epigenetic templates. Energy collection and representation run synergistically, deeply nested within the enfolding levels of nested structured~duality  --  like a fields of blades of grass held protectively, say, within the hand of God and/or the enfolding Spirit.  

    The universal numbers/machine/words/theory/program can already refute all normative complete theory about them.

[rf]   You say this, AFTER invoking Subconscious Step 0 and while building your expressions via the internal nested structural coding.   I'm not doubting that you can develop very helpful; and sophisticated mathematical models. In your storyline, though, I observe you assuming and ~perhaps achieving, say, the modeling goal of representation. What you might term "consciousness", or 1pp, 3pp,, knowing, dreaming...  but I am not observing that your three (or four) sub-hypotheses support  or can achieve deeply nested synergistic energy collection/flow and representation together which is what we are actually all running. 

    You look at the universal baby and you reduce it to the orders you give to him (like send this mail), but they are        mathematical beings, and we can study mathematical the initial conversation we can have with them on themselves.

[rf] In PHP I can and have used the mail(); function to send emails. But I am sending a structurally coded signal to resonant (mostly tetrahedral) energized silicon that's already pre-configured in a deeply nested structural coding.  Okay. I somewhat relate but I notice what I consider is a difference, again, referring back to the Subconscious Step 0 that I observe you are invoking, and considering that it appears like you and Von Neumann rely upon the fundamental nested structure but fail epically to acknowledge it.

And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?

All humans are at the least, provably, extension of universal machine, and the theology concernes all the universal number/machine/belief and their consistent extensions.

[rf] I say, again, given your Subconscious Step 0.

I use fully Gödel’s technic of arithmetization of metamathematics, and indeed I use Löb and Solovay theorem which capture the propositional 3p science and theology by the modal logics G and G*.

[rf] Do you men you concurr with others who have previously also invoked Subconscious Step 0 when building associations between arithmetical relations and  me, you, humanity and phsycial reality?

Subconscious Step 0 is the Gödel bomb, in logic, metaphysics, theology and eventually physics. Especially when assuming YD + CT.

Not that CT implies the bomb in one diagonalization, which means that I can explain this in few lines. Soon, or later.

Can you please clarify and explain?

I identify a person/machine with its (local) set of beliefs, and its knowledge with the intersection of that set with the truth.

[rf] So, you believe in comp. What about what is in or missing from  your blindspot?

You will never know what I believe. It is private, … and fluctuating. I will only communicate what I can deduce from hypotheses.

The incompleteness theorem makes “provability” into a belief, not a knowledge. But we get a notion of knowledge by a local conjunct with truth.

[rf]  Or... we get the incompleteness theorem that makes "provability" into a belief, not a knowledge, because that storyline on truth lacks appreciation of reality being nested structured~duality.

Why? I don’t see that, and you really need to explain “nested structured-duality”, if possible, axiomatically, which is a way to avoid metaphysical baggage in the language used.

That makes possible to “reapply” Theaetetus theory of knowledge. It refutes Socrates critics (and others). 

[rf] By "reapply",  I notice you going to the nested structure well again, wearing your blindfold.

The modal logics which appears are nested, like with “I know p implies that I know that I know p”.

From outside, we use the semantic of arithmetic, and set theory if needed, and the numbers inside will have that freedom to.

[rf] Inside, outside, semantic... more un-sub-conscious nested structured~duality. 

Many ignore the discovery of the universal machine, and its rich self-referential logic, operating at different level.

[rf] Self-referential...   different level...    so it comes as no surprise to observe nested structured~duality   is universal machine and vise versa.

But I think it is better not to idolise any srtucture. I use number because they are know by everybody. From that I explains, using mechanism, the appearance of the qualia and quanta, and the infinitely many nesting of realty/dreams.

That a pattern appears everywhere is not a sign of deepness or interestingness, especially if you are not able to define it either axiomatically, or in some other axiomatic theory, like set theory. If not you might do interesting, but unsharable work, I’m afraid.

My assumption of mechanism is low, in the sense that the substitution level is not bounded in advance. No universal machine can know its substitution level, but can make bet: being alive is being able to die, but conscious is different, it becomes a fixed point of the self-transformations.

[rf]  Substitution level?   Substitution level of what? 

It is the level of description of the brain used for the transplants. A high level, like the neuronal states, will be cheaper than a low level, like the quantum state of the brain including entanglements, etc. It is the number of Kb to store your soul. 

Is your answer "physical reality"? "Nested fields within nested fields"? "Spiritual existence"? "Soul”?

The level can be described itself as relative (intensional) number. Yu will need an apparent hardware to emulate the person and interact with her. But then, later, you will understand that all emulation are in arithmetic, and that the physical is given by the measure of probability on the first person experience associated with the (infinitely)  many computations. It is bad news if you don’t like mathematics, but that is why I love mechanism: it transforms some question in the philosophy of mind into mathematical problems.

Secondly,  your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions.  Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously.  Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each.    In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control  communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms...   All, quite imaginative.   After a while,  in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity.  The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for   being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.   

I do not know the truth, but unless you change the physical laws, or if you believe that consciousness reduce the wave packet in quantum physics, what I say derive from the assumption that I would survive through such substitution if made at some level. It assumes the existence of some level, and all levels known today are Turing emulable. It makes evolution theory more difficult, and actual brain theories more complex to nt assume such level, usually high in the neuroscience. My argument still work if the brain are shown being quantum computer, although I am agnostic on that question.

[rf] But not agnostic on comp?

Totally agnostic on comp. But as it is my working hypothesis, it makes even more agnostic on the level. And even still more agnostic on the ability of the doctor ...

With arithmetic, with a bit of study, you can literally see that it is full of souls. There is a sort of Indra net of all universal histories, but the soul lives in a sort of limit of all histories, due to the first person indeterminacy (step 3).

[rf] After invoking Subconscious Step 0.  Arithmetic is one path, good for some people.  

I invoke only YD, CT, and the Post, Church, Turing, Gödel, bomb, and the work after (Löb, Goldblatt, Visser, Grzegorczyk, Solovay, …).

With that backstory, though,   perhaps that 'conditioning explains' some of my difficulty in following along with your proposed  arithmetical substitution storyline/metaphor. 

It is not a metaphor. It has begun. Some are enthusiastic about that, like the transhumanists. The materialists tends to believe this is possible, and unavoidable in the very long run, but they are wrong on the nature of matter (the testable part).

[rf] Okay, if not metaphor would you prefer  nested substitutions, or just another instance of nested structured~duality?

The levels of substitution can be seen as nested, and by definition, you survive for all substitution done below your “higher” substitution level.

But I put the whole choice of brain in the notion of level, so the structure is not a linear nesting. My argument still work if you assume that your brain is the entire physical universe, actually.

...Although, you may be aiming in some different direction.     In my storyline,  there doesn't appear to be any need for the digital comp or substitution level for the ~mental/~self translocation since that can just go "via the electromagnetic/analog resonance" somewhat by one's will.  Apparently, real yogiis or mystics can already do such  transitions, and have been able to do so for a long time.

Looks like open problem in my frame of deduction. Certainly perhaps!

Yes, I agree on the openness problem.

OK

But, like I say,  you may be aiming in some different direction -- memory/~self storage  and/or creating a comp control tech for charging a fee for mystic transactions as a service (MTAAS). Yes?

Thirdly, old business -- thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false. 

It is more trees and related lattices. The key is a “Galois connection”: more axioms = less models, more models = less axioms. It is like in algebra: the more equation, the less the number of solutions.

[rf] You mean, as in if nested structure level is like 30 or 3000 then, we get the physics stories  of  the improbable/rare set of conditions  that permit life to be like it is?

Not sure what you mean here.

 Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

It is like that at the non monotonically level, but I concentrate on ideal correct machine, much simpler than us. To derive physics, I need only the correct number. The part of the number which believe that their are Napoleon is negligible in arithmetic … 

~Ok.

I am a reasoner. I take very seriously both consciousness and the mechanist hypothesis. I thought I would get a contradiction, but I get only weirdness, even a quantum like form of weirdness where we expect matter to appear (in the 1p and 1p plural views). (Not in the 3p).

[rf] But what does happen?   Does the weirdness seem to you to be unending or increasing? 

It looks like the quantum, and it increase “near god” or “near death”;

 What does it indicate to you that you expect contradiction but get weirdness?

That nature might be as much crazy than we can expect with the theology of the numbers.

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies.

Hmm… I know that your goal is not to communicate, but prefer use the simple material needed to understand what is a (universal) machine or number. If you get a NSD explanation of the numbers or consciousness, publish it, or write a text. Just diagrams is not enough for me to see anything than a sort of appreciation of the number 3 and 4, which I share. 

[rf] Pardon me. Not that it may help, but what I was trying to say is, okay, I see and apply the pattern of 1) pick a structure;

A term like structure is already quite involved. What do you mean by structure? Is mathematical? Physical? 

2) pick a duality

That is a billion times more fuzzy. 

3) build outward to limits as ~universal.

You loss me. Sorry. 

Then I apply that to my crude idea of logic and estimate logic picks structure of a list and duality as true-false (where you folks look at statements and assess whether each is true or false).

Or asses that we cannot answer (yet, or ever).

So the "structure/duality" of logic is "list/true-false", according to me. 

True/False

Syntax/Meaning

Theory/Model

Program/Behaviour

First person/First Person Plural

First person/Third Person

Logic is not just true/false. It is full of dualities, trivialities, modalities, etc. 

Then in situations like "This sentence is false", it appears to me that the user is rather directly inserting the (primary duality) assessment criteria ("false") into the  statement in the assessment system and therein creating the ~anomaly of a contradiction, which ( I am sort of guessing) violates a rule in NSD meaning NSD would predict the contradiction just from the statement (...assuming the "do not double-up on the NSD instance's duality or you'll get a contradiction" rule holds).  In the regular, non-NSD perspective folks are not considering the underlying structured~duality pattern and thus are unable to notice such patterns. 

You need to solve a problem, or to put light on some problem. The paragraph above looks like “Chinese" to me (and I have study Chinese in my youth!).

Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality. 

?

[rf] ...Maybe re-read this passage a couple of times while provisionally imagining "nested structured~duality   is the previously unnoticed and  unnamed underlying general principle".

Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

?

This is like how the scientific method  works and advances itself riding on its anomalies. When the paradigm is slightly flawed, strange things (your weirdnesses, perhaps)

The quantum weirdness is well known and verify, so to recover them from reasonable hypothesis, like mechanism, is worth to be noticed. 

start accumulating, where the anomalous data/observation typically prompt for shifting to a different level of perspcetive (transcend; move inward...). For instance, Madam Curie's photographic plates mysteriously developing images   in a closed lab drawer nearby to some radioactive pitchblend.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set”. 

There are many nested structures. The Mandelbrot set is a typical set (of complex numbers) which illustrates a fundamental super form of self nesting. Each mini-brot copy its neighbourhood integrally 2, 4, 8, 16, … 2^n, …. Around itself! Yet, is “made” only of little Mandelbrot sets, making its fractal hausdorf dimension 2.

It could be a compact universal dovetailing, in which case it is “home”.

Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD’s.

You need to define NSD. But you might do idolatry for a structure. What is nice with mechanism is that we have the tools to reason independently of the mathematical structure chosen. 

[rf] NSD = nested structured~duality.

That is not a definition. You need to say what you assume, and define “nested”, “structure”, “duality”.

Pick a structure; pick a duality (or pick a couple of dualities/differences); build outward to the limits of those initial conditions; rinse and repeat -- nest the structured dualities. 

[rf] If you or I pick idolatry as structure, what is the complementary, helpful or necessary pick for the duality? Rules are rules so it's pick a structure AND a duality.  It's an offhand  guess on my part, but  I think idolatry is not a structure but is already an NSD or some type of conglomerate.    

[rf] I will try to stay open to the niceties of mechanism and I am vaguely aware of the importance and strength of abstract mathematical modeling even though I am inept at it.

I can help, if your interest is genuine. When people have problem in math, it is 99,9% of the case a psychological problem, due to bad teaching.

Like Gauss said, mathematics is the simplest of all science. It can be hard to find something, but it is easy to verify the findings of the others. It needs only work and patience.

  But with my present closed-world mechanism, I also observe that ALL of ALL our expressions are riding on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized   cwb (carbon-water-based) internal nested structural coding and we forge and store and cipher in those ~chemically completed creations. 

That does not necessarily proves more than some (Turing) universality of your system, which is not defined enough precisely to be proved so.

Anyway, it assumes the things I want to explain, like carbon, electron, etc. 

And, somehow, structurally coding via these ~tetrahedral patterns allows mathematicians and logicians to reason and cipher and express in the great variety of ways that they do.  

I prefer to start from the simple. How would you explain the NSD to a kid?

[rf] 1) Hold a magnetic

That has been to be explained. With mechanism, we cannot assume something physical. 

tetrahedron in  hands with eyes closed or imagine holding one (https://magnetictetrahedra.com/phpshow.php (advance  to the right image)). Give or imagine giving each of the four magnets one-half spin end-for-end in succession. On each step, use the probe magnet to feel the polarity (attraction or repulsion) at the four outer vertices (magnet ends). Count and name the different states. Count and name the different states. Repeat a couple of times with eyes open (or closed).  3) Place, the n2s2 unit in a cubic cardboard or plexiglas box with vertices always at the same four corners of the cube. Use the probe magnet to determine the location of the two attractive vertices. Re-orient those vertices in as many ways as you can and count the different states.  Repeat with the other  states identified in step 1. The structured~duality of this instance is "tetrahedron/north-south (or attraction-repulsion).  3) Imagine repeating with octahedron and other regular polyhedra for structure.   

I present results, verified by peers (and contested by people invoking conviction). My work is of the type: if you believe in this and this, then you have to believe in this and this, or invoke a god or magic. That is an error in science, even in the theological science. 

[rf] What is it that you say is an error in science and theological science?

To invoke things like “reality”, “truth”,  “god” … in the course of an explanation or proof.

It is indeed illuminating to see how the self-observing machine, staying correct in the process, can already say about the subject.

[rf] Ignoring "self-observing" or assigning it as a feature of the Subconscious Step 0,

I insist. The subconscious step 0 is either the definition of “computationalism” or “digital mechanism”, as an hypothesis in the cognitive science, or the theorem that all human experiences are emulated in arithmetic, once we suppose computationalism. Keep in mind that I assume computationalism as my working hypothesis, if only to get some contradictions, but we get only quantum mechanics. 

  I can sort of relate (see the above description for showing NSD to a kid).  Although I might say today that the mechanism of a magnetic tetrahedron unfolds to show nested structured~duality  and NSD-related variable mass density multiple states, nad sp^3 hybridized structural coding, etc.   But, in my view, it (this mechanism) does so due to the specific instance of nested structured~duality (tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion).

I am amazed that a small set of reasonable beliefs leads quickly to making us doubting Aristotle, and making sense of Plato.

It is alas technical, today. 

[rf] Why do you suppose it is so technical, today, in the storyline you present?

Because you need to have a good idea of what is computer or universal machine, to realise that the computations are done in virtue of existing number relations, etc.

Mechanism relies on computer science and mathematical logic. That is why I study it: we can derive precise and testable statements.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider. 

Also, in your modeling

It is not a modelling. It is an act of faith. I study the consequence of assuming that this act of faith is correct.

When you say yes for a prosthesis, it is not a model/theory, it is your life. 

[rf] Maybe I am wrong, but I get the impression you have not pulled the trigger yet except to repeat the expressions  and hypothesize a plausible or potential comp possibility that you find interesting.  Me, after noticing the floating or potential  Subconscious Step 0 in the mix, so far I'm leery and skittish and will hold back, awaiting positive and consistent reports of increased bliss and happiness of a large number of early adopters. 

Science is not wishful thinking. If truth makes anyone quite unhappy, we can be sad, but can’t lie for that reason. Searching truth is not a recipe for happiness a priori. Almost the contrary. You are usually burned or buried alive or worse, even well before being understood. Then the truth itself might not be such more making us happy. 

But the consequences are the greater in metaphysics/ Plato is right and Aristotle is wrong. What we see is only the shadow of the universal mind, or cosmic consciousness. Many here seem to have that intuition. Then I show that all (Gödel-Löbian) universal machine share that intuition too, in a so precise way that we can test it, and so maybe test the present of some primary matter, also.

[rf]  And so, we wait.   

But the main test have been done, and we get the needed quantisation exactly where we need them. Of course no test proves any theory. But we can still hope a refutation. Without it, we can only use the simplest theory which explains the most. Computationalism is at billions years away of predicting as well as physics (but that is not his goal), but is the only theory which predicts and explains consciousness and matter, qualia and quanta, with quantitative prediction.

I am wondering if there is one mechanism or many? 

There one, and many one, and many. The universal numbers all plays the role of a “one”, with its Plotinian-like theology. But most machines re not universal, and among the universal the differentiation has a quite large spectrum.

All mechanism, or computable digital processes are implemented in the arithmetical reality. That is a theorem in computer science, that we have to take into account when assuming mechanism.

[rf] So, there are many mechanisms.      But when you say, "when assuming mechanism", isn't that being a bit circular? 

Why?

I don't know if my approach is any different.

It assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.

  I ~assume  or assert "reality is nested structured~duality" then fashion an analog mechanism (magnetic tetrahedron)

That assumes quite a lot. 

that provides physical intuition on states and variable mass density, and ~the or ~a dominant  pattern of  our ontology and surroundings, and coding of our representations of our ontology and surroundings, etc.,  and then I learn/discover that it's a mechanism -- but that seems a bit superfluous or unnecessary along the storyline I advocate.  

It cannot be a mechanism, unless you derive the NSD formally from 2+2=4 & Co.

 Also, is delivering physical intuition an alternate measure or demonstration of effectiveness of a model or theory -- alternate to, say, formal expression or Popper-like falsifiability -- particularly for models supporting both ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?

It depends. When not doing the math, and the experiences, it becomes to look like a personal report, which might make sense for more people later, or not. 

You better always explain your ideas in term of the ideas the other are familiar with.

Kind regards,

Bruno

[rf]  I think I could flippantly and somewhat accurately say, "I did the (analog) math in my head (or it did me).",although I really externalized the analog math and it taught me. Otherwise, I  suggest my expressions are  like an echo or magnetized or energized translation of relations and expressions presented by R. Buckminster Fuller in the last century. However, I understand what you mean and I deeply appreciate that and all of your other kind and informative advice. I will endeavor to improve.

OK. Good. Have a nice Sunday! 

Best,

Bruno

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

PS tell me if you did got my long post, if not I might or not resend it online. Hope you get this one!

[rf] Nothing yet.   I will go back to making my way through steps in SANE04. 

(OK. Nice. Hope this post will go through). May be let us just discuss the UDA steps one by one. It is easier for the possible readers, also.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/581f933a-4c95-43b3-831d-ab7f15dd9b3a%40googlegroups.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno,

In continuing my reading of SANE04 I see that after the 8 steps you go through associating what I am considering human traits such as "modesty", etc.,   with classical logic symbol patterns.  To me, perhaps because I structurally coded my complaint BEFORE consuming your account, I still think that you breach your Sub-hypothesis#3 "independently" term separating AR from "me, you, humanity, physical reality (if exists)..." but I can imagine that you probably see it otherwise and probably for good reason. 

Perhaps because of traits of the rather physical/structured-duality model I advocate as running within our organism,    I believe I see that the ordering of "constructive learning" --the order in which one builds their model/facts/understanding-- plays a role, at least for me,  particularly in structurally coding in the cwb organism. 

I also notice that your notion about getting physics from at least (1pp plus 1pp plural) polling operations coincides  somewhat with the storyline I have come  up with of shifting from the ~Cartesian 2-bin subjective-objective scheme to what I call the "spectrum of repeatable subjectivity" (srs).

This spectrum has unique, rare, stochastic, periodic, consistent or invariant... segments of repeatable subjectivity, or *feels*, or experiences.  Stuff in the 'consistent or invariant' segment (what I also call 'strongly repeating') is what is typically called "objective" within the dominant 2-bin scheme. But that label is only conferred  after multiple 1pp experiences (albeit, maybe at different national labs) are replicated -- getting  consistent, repeatable results.  So, I am thinking that pattern ~fits with your 1pp plus 1pp plural condition, although I assume you also have an added constraint somewhere where, for physics, you are hopeful for having essentially complete replication of all 1pp assessments -- at least for the current period until new insights/contradictions are gained and the entire scientific tenets and paradigm changes to an improved 1pp plus 1pp plural POV. Thus, perhaps your mechanism needs to be able to carry two or more competing 1pp plus 1pp plural models for the dominant and provisional instances. Do your mechanism/machine/logic rules  have that capability, Bruno, or would those need to be add-ons?

Similarly, I suppose, for  people who report having ~rare experiences, say, an NDE, or other varieties of religious experience.  Such accounts  may be over in the "rare" category in the srs, but it is still a consensual ~quasi-agreement on the 1pp plus 1pp plural  *feel*. But, unlike the invariant experiences, the experiencing and the agreement is not so highly repeating and/or is apparently blurred across a couple of levels of nested structure.

Were you to adopt this srs scheme then perhaps your metaphysics and theology stories might collapse to just varying on current or local frequency.   I seem to think that would be a simplifying feature, but it may be a bug from other perspectives.

Additionally, I  see where you go through so-called interrogating machines to associate belief-logic-knowledge notation patterns with "modesty" and other human traits. However, I am not (so far) seeing, nor have I read where you reference logic symbols  packages for showing the machines' ability to, say, deliver or emulate delivering "physical intuition" and/or "creativity".  Have I missed this or just not read far enough?  Or do you just have-wavingly assume it in "assuming one survives the substitution?

[As an aside,  I believe or understand I can survive  a lobotomy with knitting needles  through my eye sockets,  but I haven't read of the underlying AR spontaneously kicking in to re-establish creativity or physical intuition. My point is surviving is one thing; having equal or better traits is another.]

Do you have such logic statement association patterns already developed for the traits of  physical intuition and creativity for your digital mechanisms, like you have for "modesty", etc.?  

My first guess is  such logic statements might not exist -- or my bias is to cling to such only as in the province of  our cbw human organism arrangements. But also I vaguely see myself claiming that interrogating a magnetic tetrahedron (mechanism) on what one gets when  it steps through its  possible  half-spins and nesting within an enfolding  cube (field),  does generate or deliver physical intuition (in my cwb system)  on variable mass density multiple states differing in increments of one-half-spin.

But, is this physical intuition just available to cwb organisms like you and I and others due to the interactive tool use and symmetry of the specific tool patterns with universal cwb symmetries?  Or, can units of physical intuition and creativity  be created and delivered via  Turing machines and/or Turing emulations in a  straightforward way?   

It seems to me like nesting would be involved to get/deliver units of  physical intuition in machines or organisms.  Do you have such classical logic symbols and statement  association patterns already developed for the traits of  physical intuition and creativity?

If  not, does that sort of imply that once one goes through the proposed digital mechanism substitution a known  or potential side-effect, which should be listed on the side of the pill box or on the waiver agreement, is probable loss of  developing or  having/retaining physical intuition, creativity, and the ability to change paradigms?

On another point, regarding a machine not being able to ~name itself or say what kind of machine it is,  I observe something similar in the 6^n structural coding and hydrogen-bonding influence-in-protein-folding-to-get-words, where 'a person' could be running on ~any value of n  (6^6, 6^12, 6^23) and still have ~functional  internal representations and expressions along with their peers -- but where the individual  is clueless on which specific 6^n s/he is running. The choice of n might affect vocabulary or cleverness, but, would not preclude some functionality.  Also, in the 6^n ordered water cwb mechanism, words get sounded out ~downstream, after initial structural coding in ordered water and so ~names are always coming from "outside", or in consensus with subsequent or prior generations. (Thus, our parents name us -- before our cumulative actions ~name or characterize us further.) Thus we have an ineffable feeling before we coin a new term, say, for the underlying general principle.  The machine that created the machine would likely be tasked with naming its creations.

Overall, Bruno, I think  central differences between our storylines are, you are assuming or testing something roughly like "reality is Arithmetical Realism", whereas  I am saying/assuming "reality is nested structured~duality (NSD)".  From my perspective, in your Sub-hypothesis#3 you say that AR is true "independently" from "me, you, humanity, physical reality...", whereas, I view that NSD is the common denominator underlying what we presently consider as the "mental" and the "physical" realms.  

From my POV, I consider all of your YD+CT+AR and SANE04 expressions  are mental artifacts which you pose or consider as "true independently of" (I see it as separate from)  "me, you, humanity, physical reality" ... ~physical artifacts.   I suspect, though, that you more see that there is only ~AR, sort of like on some days I see there is only NSD and the ~mental and ~physical categories are only available to us or considered by us due to these being features of the paradigm we have already learned or acquired. 

FWIW, I sort of see your   AR "independently true of"  [you,me, humanity] as perhaps an excessive and unrealistic  or inappropriate dissociation, or perhaps like you are idolizing numbers/AR when ALL of its facets and features could be like extremely persistent, functional ~quales embedded within our cwb being.   I guess that is what you suggest or aim to test. 

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

My approach may be quite an approximation, but the magnetic tetrahedron also does deliver physical intuition on much of our, and our surroundings'  ontology, as well as on variable mass density multiple states differing by increments of one-half spin -- out of the box.

...more below... some snipped away -- couple items of interest very neer the end...

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

On 25 Jan 2018, at 16:24, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Bruno,

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 2:56:21 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Ralph,

... 

I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04  paper. 

 

OK. 

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...

"Definition:  Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:

(1) yes doctor..

(2) Church thesis...

3)      Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."

What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...”.  

Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning? 

No. In fact, the arithmetical realism is already implicit in Church thesis. I added to make it clear, especially for philosopher of mathematics, which usually have much stronger form of realism (like set theoretical realism, which I don’t use at all), but many people add metaphysics which is not much present.  I use the same amount of arithmetical realism that the one use at the meta-level by all applied scientists. No architect would have some fear that when he will die, the building he build will collapse due to the fact that 1+1 would stop to be true after death. Taking any insurance policy witness some belief in this arithmetical realism. It looks more philosophical than it is really. I like to define an “arithmetical realist” by anyone who does not take his/her kids back from school when they are taught that there in greatest prime number (say). You need an infinitely big ego to believe that when you die the notion of prime number would lose its meaning.

Without arithmetical realism, it is just impossible to define what is a digital machine, or a partial computable functions, etc.

OK.

OK. Good. I get often the advise of not trying to explain computationalism and its consequence to people who have a problem with 2+2 = 4, of with there is no biggest prime, or that the square of an odd number is 1 added to 8 triangular numbers, or things like that. 

Then, there is something which annoy some number theorists (but not all, like Manin which includes recursion theory in number theory), which is that a number can be used as a symbol, and number can talk and dream about themselves. This judicially called intensional arithmetic, the extensional one being the usual Number Theory. Recursion theory is computability and uncomputability theory. The theory of degrees of unsolvability. The computable is a tiny (but important) part of arithmetic.

[rf] My ~complaint/question is related to what assumptions or associations you invoke to endow your AR artifacts with the abilibty to speak and dream and have 1pp/3pp and what I consider to have other human, personal traits -- particularly after you begin (as I see it) separating AR from human-personal traits in Subhypothesis#3.  I observe in your paper where you later add the associations, but it still seems contrived or necessarily convenient.

 I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion,  when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation.

A separate category? I do not see what you mean. Separate from what? All theories brings some separation, between its objects of talk and other things.

[rf] I believe I mean something like all the artifacts, traits and relations in arithmetic realism  are in one instance of NSD, which is (to be independent), separate from all the artifacts, traits and relations in  "me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists)" which is in a different instance of NSD. In this case, as I read your sub-hypothesis#3, AR is in one 'bubble'  or category and "me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists)" and our traits and relations are in a different, separate 'bubble' or category.    Thus trits like 1pp, knowing, dreaming... is not in the AR category.

AR is the believe in the (unbounded) table of addition and multiplication, etc. I don’t understand what you mean by “AR category”.

[rf] As different from the "me,you, humanity, physical reality (if exists)" category you say  AR is true, independently of.  Also, is the "(unbounded) table of addition and multiplication" something like a flat database or table of ~all calculated or computed numbers -- very much like a mental artifact?

All the rest will follow from the Turing universality of elementary arithmetic. 

99% of this was proved for the first time by Gödel 1931. Turing, Kleene, Church, Tarski, and others will make clear where the incompleteness come from. The presence of a universal machine. Those theories are essentially undecidable, which means that not only they are undecidable, but all their consistent extensions (machines or non-machines) are undecidable.

Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing...  to me  it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.

Not at all. The whole point is that the computations can be proved to exist, once we assume 0, the successors, addition and multiplication, and by this I mean the assumptions (and nothing more, except classical logic (which by the way I assume for reason of simplicity: technically, for describing the basic ontology, I need only identify axioms (like x = x, x = y & y = z -> x = z, etc.). For the internal (to that ontology) epistemology or phenomenology I still need to assume the full classical logic, though.

After that, you can reason intuitively using comp, and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity which reflects themselves enough, a bit like in the reasoning in 8 step in sane04, or you can directly defined them (using the Classical Greek definition based on a notion of belief, in arithmetic, with belief translated by Gödel’s arithmetical beweisbar (provability) predicate. It is incompleteness which motivates this use of beweisbar, because provability (even by correct machine) behaves as a notion of belief (the machine cannot prove that []p -> p). ([]p abbreviates beweisbar(‘p’), with ‘p’ a number encoding of the arithmetical proposition p.

[rf] Seriously?   First or all, are you saying that you cannot see or recognize the point or question I am trying to express?

Which human traits? Obviously, if you survive with a digital brain, it means that your consciousness is preserve, with all your human traits intacts, by definition.

[rf] Traits: 1pp, 3pp, [creativity], talking, dreaming.   I can survive a lobotomy via knitting needles  through the eye sockets, but hows my consciousness?   Will a digital replacement remedy that? 

I don’t claim that computationalism is true. I study its consequences and I show them testable, and indeed I show them fitting quite well with Everett/Feynman formulation of quantum mechanics, until now.

[rf] Until now?  Do you mean, "so far", or are you currently encountering difficulty? 

Secondly, where in your stack is, say,  some axiom pattern or expression n  "is" exactly equal to  (or assumed or associated as)  "dreaming", or to "1st person perspective”?

Consider the brain of someone doing a dream. With mechanism, this is equivalent with some physical process emulation a digital computation, which is equivalent with a universal transformation leading to a sequence of steps, relatively coded into numbers. 

[rf] Alternatively, the dream involves the flow of energy and re-interpretation/adjustment of recent structural coding  to accommodate stresses and strains within the overall arrangement of structural coding while sometimes also ~creating or leaving behind an accessible trace of the revised structural coding as a marker or signal.  The emulation does not have knowledge of all the features and benefits of cwb dreaming and so would either need to be informed and then programmed to emulate said benefits, or the individual would be a bit autistic due to lacking those benefits.  But, perhaps like you postulate, if the person survived the transition, s/he could not tell the difference or detect the losses. 

If some primary matter plays some role in the presence of consciousness, then the mechanist hypothesis is false. So with mechanism, you have to attribute consciousness to all sequences of numbers which are related by some universal number, and I call such sequence a dream. Keep in mind this is natural given that we *assume* mechanism. If only to get a contradiction so that we can abandon it, but until now we get quantum weirdness and the embryo of the quantum formalism (yet with the qualia/quanta difference justified by the machine). To define the knower, or the first person, I use the fact that incompleteness refutes Socrates refutation of Theaetetus. It simply work, and associate canonically a first person to the self-referentially correct universal machine.

[rf] It's not just 'primary matter' or in my instance,  structure or nested structure. Also involved is energy flow/conservation in a synergetic manner. To the extent that your mechanism is not functional that way or accurately emulating the synergetic energy flow/conservation (perhaps for all the multiple levels of structural coding), the digital mechanism is already false, or overly approximate/idealistic.  

I guess this is like saying, ~we, life and living are actually doing  ALL of our ~calculations in increments of, say, sp^3 hybridized structures, nested within other sp^3 hybridized structures. So it's not "some primary matter plays some role in the presence of consciousness",  but "some primary nested structures doing energetic structural coding".

As for your process going down the quantum weirdness rabbit hole,  FWIW, notice that mechanism has some pre-established kinship with quantum 'mechanics'.  There may be a habitual recognition path in your endeavor and QM features.

Also, where you say, "incompleteness refutes Socrates refutation of Theaetetus", (forgive me for having just read a slight bit on this "What is knowledge?"story, but are you saying, you know what knowledge is, rather than what it is not?

[And here I assume you do not mean the correct answer of "Knowledge is nested structured~duality." ]

Or is that sort of thing already pre-embedded in your stack of assumptions,

My assumptions can be summed up with YD + CT.

YD = Yes doctor, and is the willingness to conceive we could survive a physical digital brain implant, emulating the brain/body at some level of description (be it superstrings or neuronal).

as in the classical logic structure or entangled within "reflection" or "provability", and you just continue to assume the association between the comp/logic patterns and the various ~human/physical reality traits and relations? 

I really don’t understand. I assume that the brain and body are Turing emulable. Automatically that gives human traits to a machine. 

[rf] I hear you, but I don't believe it, I guess because of your reliance on abstraction. The logic symbols and statements may  indicate it, but you are still "calculating" and completing ALL of your steps, internally, within your own sp^3 hybridized  structural coding system.   Also, from an engineering slant, strengths develop from resisting real tensions and compressions.  

Would be glad if a restaurant forbid to someone to enter, or refuse to give food to someone, under the pretext that he has survived a digital brain transplantation? Will you consider that it has become a (philosophical) zombie? Or do you think that this is impossible, at all possible level of description, making us into a special analog machines which needs the infinities of decimals to do its work? Even this, mathematically will lead to difficulties with respect to relating first and third person views. But mechanism is simpler, and it works (until now).

[rf] I am starting out with the notion that ~we are already special cwb analog machines, but if you notice, I am saying that consciousness (that is, in my lingo, structural coding) in being done in the energy flow and the stochiometry of our aerobic respiration reaction, is also just done in simple ratios and integers in the chemical transactions yet that provides the more expressive ~6^n structural coding. So, roughly, physical reality has already rounded off the decimals in nesting the many levels so as to obtain the cwb resonance level.   So, yes, all the queer decimals in the physical constants are present, but the nesting gets simple integer resonance and transactions in the carbon-water-based structural coding.  (Thus, getting the quasi-agreement between our storylines.) 

I'm not saying  "You're wrong", because I still don't track on Turing emulation and/or difference between level of artifact substitution  and level of description, where perhaps the Turing loom spits out a woven fabric which is just a complete description of an organism and not the actual functional organism. I'm skeptical on the digital substitution.  

Thirdly, it looks ot me like your accomplish this "sleight of mind" in your process in your statement of "...and attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity...”. 

Then you are charge to explain how a universal machine could distinguish if she is run by a physical machine or by arithmetic, by introspection.

[rf] By sense of touch and revisions of physical intuition, changing paradigms and other creative acts...

 

I explain that if the machine is genuinely in relation with some “physical reality”, or in an emulation, can be tested.

 That is, you use the word "attributing", whereas I would say the action is "assuming" or "assigning" or "associating", so, from my current perspective, you do just blur or violate the alleged "independence", albeit, perhaps subconsciously or mesmeristically, within your instance. 

With the mundane consciousness of the others, we always attribute, but in reality assume, associate, etc. But mechanism makes it just clear: we assume a level of description such that we survive, in the usual clinical sense, a digital brain prosthesis. 

[rf] What do you replace in the case of, say, a person said to have no brain matter?   http://www.iflscience.com/brain/man-tiny-brain-lived-normal-life/   ...Or, more like, WHAT is it that the Doctor is knowledgable enough to substitute  out?

I will endeavor to continue reading SANE04 and try to get through  the steps, but your explanation here of  "...attributing consciousness to the arithmetical entity…",

That will be in step seven and eight. It needs you to understand the difference between a theory and a model in the sense of the logician, and which I prefer to call a reality, like the reality of the structure (N, 0, +, *), what the logician calls the “standard model of arithmetic”, and which is what is taught implicitly in primary school.

to me, clinches the issue.  ~You simply assume the blur and cross-over or it's already pre-embedded in your body of lore.

I assume a digital version of Descartes Mechanism, in the UDA (the Universal Dovetailer Argument, in 8 steps).

Then I translate somehow UDA is arithmetic, using Gödel’s technic, and, mainly Solovay theorem, which capture a large part of the machine “theology”.

The theology appears in the mind of the universal machine when they grasp the abyss between computer science and computer’s computer science. 

[rf] Here you assume or assert a universal machine has a mind?    "Mind" is a term that troubles me. Do you have a definition for mind of a person and mind of a universal machine?

Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations,

To believe in arithmetical relations *is* arithmetical realism.

Example: (Plutarch) All squared even number are equal to 1+ 8 triangular numbers. (The triangular numbers are the number 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, … (that is, the numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, …; 1+2+3+4 was the “famous” (among Pythagorean) Tetraktys).

You can solve that by algebra, or by drawing let us say the square of 5 or 7, reminding that a square is, well a square.

I was used to think that the only one who disbelieve in arithmetical realism are the ultrafinitists (who reject the idea that there is no greatest natural number). I know only two of them! And since then, I have realised that even the ultrafinitist believes in the right amount of arithmetic for the work to proceed. This is why I do not put the induction axiom in the ontology.

That is why I do no more assume it explicitly, and let it implicit in the use of Church's thesis (which is realist on the notion of computable functions). Sometimes, when we make explicit something obvious, people does not understand that we could assume something so obvious, and then they add metaphysics which is not there. If you agree that 2+3=3+2, and the same for any successors, you are already an arithmetical realist.

I just put all the cards on the table. 

[rf] Maybe you are leading me, as a blind, dumb donkey to the watering hole, 

Hmm… OK. 

 however, so far, I am pretty sure my complaint or question is not with  arithmetical relations or arithmetical realism. At this point my quibble is more like with what I consider   this moment as ~your 'mis-applied arithmetical realism’.

If you agree with “there is no biggest prime number”, you believe already in PA, which will play the role of the observer in the arithmetical reality. PA is indeed a Löbian machine, and RA will mimic it to, despite never becoming PA itself, except as consistent extensions. 

Here I relied on the work of the mathematical logicians, would discovered that universal machine, or creative set (Emil Post). 

I “discovered” this in biology. I have study the theology of the amoeba before recognising it in arithmetic. 

[rf] Are you saying that "believe already in PA, which will play the role of the observer in the arithmetical reality", that you assume  this association is valid?  That if have the specific belief about prime numbers then I believe PA which you suggest is equal to being an observer?  

Or more specifically ~your or comp's apparent assignments of non-AR traits

Non AR traits? You seem to assume non-mechanism. If you survive with a digital brain, you associate indeed human traits to AR traits, in some sense. The doctor will digitalise you, and for some moment, “you” will “be” a number stored in a computer, before having a working engram/program.

[rf] Non-AR traits would be  Human traits.    I may be missing the boat, but I am  apparently thinking that human traits are like a blur or multi-level nested stack of energy flow and structure with real gaps and proximities and so if the digital mechanism is lacking the same features, then the traits don't translate. So there may be a number in the computer but it's functionally unrepresentative of ~my structural coding.

Yet, I do sort of envision that human traits/features DO structurally code into ordered water stacks.

 

to AR relations, which, to me looks like a violation of your sub-hypothesis#3.

sub-hypothesis#3.?

Forget AR, it is needed anyway in CT. Comp is YD + CT. CT is Church-Turing, or Church’s thesis (Kleene).

Perhaps what's needed is a work-around or extension to add Subconscious Step 0 which says, feel free to attribute/associate consciousness and any other human/physical realitytraits to arithmetical entities while pretending or denying not doing that.

Step 0 is computationalism. It is not subconscious. What lacks in YD + CT.   (CT makes no sense with AR)

Also, as an aside, FWIW, I would like to point out that  2+3 = 3+2 is yet another instance of NSD

Really? Well honestly I hope it. The contrary would mean that you NSD is not Turing universal, and would fail to explain, well, elementary arithmetic.

[rf] What I mean is on the left side of  the equation the addition mechanism is like an arrow ~pointing to the right. On the right side of the equation the plus mechanism is ~pointing to the left.   

where we agree on, in this case, the lack of change with a change is structure. What would that be:  Commutation is nested structured~duality? (As are mathematics and mathematical physics, etc.)

?

(You loss me. You might define precisely each term, and proves your statement)

[rf]  I see it more just as arrows pointing in opposite directions:    --->  =  <---   linear structure with left-right duality.

and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?   

In the informal (yet deductive) argument I use only the invariance of consciousness for some substitution level. It is up to you and your doctor to choose an emulation at the level of the multicellular organism level, or at the quantum field level, run by an apple, or a banana or any other micro-universal machine that you can implement in the physical reality (but then it *is* “already” implemented in the arithmetical reality, relatively to an infinity of universal numbers.

[rf] I think this is where we diverge since I am  not getting the picture that  structural coding and energy flow in the ~physical is exactly equal to  the implementation in the arithmetical reality.   

[rf] You assume "invariance of consciousness for some substitution level" only after you take your unstated Subconscious Step 0. 

?

[rf] Pardon me, you are doing one thing, I am thinking, or mis-thinking another.

That is, ~your prior statement ~was something like: "There is invariance of arithmetical relations at various levels.” 

I do not talk about an invariance of arithmetical relations. They are true of false. Provable or not provable by machine x or y.

[rf] So you say: ar is true, or ar is proveable by machine x or y? 

Only the invariance of consciousness for a digital brain transplantation done at some level of description.

I could not use Church thesis, but it takes things much smooth, with a ready answer for the critics like “what if we are not that type of machines”, as with CT it will works on all type of machines, and the theology will be universal-machine-independent.

  That's just the AR talk and I sort of follow that (or accept it).

Thans for reassuring me again.

[rf] You are welcome... 

   But then you invoke Subconscious Step 0 and swap in "consciousness" for "arithmetical relations”,

Because the notion of computations is arithmetical.

I think that this is what you seem to be not aware of. 

[rf] There are several things I do not track on, and I have my own slant.  My conditioning is to assume that the abstract math and logic you present is or may prove out to be helpful/correct. However, intuitively, I think there are (so far, ineffable) reasons that digital substitution, perhaps at any and all levels, fails, mainly because of need for concurrent synergetic transactions involving energy flow and ~tetrahedral structure(s), yet, it doesn't look to me like   classical logic handles such synergetics.   I guess that is a hunch, too.  And maybe not a helpful one unless it might help w/ developing a test.

Chapter 4 of the (already ancient) book on computability (and unsolvability), by Martin Davis (Dover book) gives a thoroughly, of course rather long, definition of a Turing machine, and its computations, in elementary arithmetic. It is very well known by the logicians. 

I'm saying,  violating your initial "independence" condition in the Sub-hypothesis#3. 

The sub hypothesis#3 is the shoulder of the giants I walk on. Yes, it is utterly crazy, but you don’t need more hypothesis to prove the existence of the machines and of  their computations than to prove the existence of the prime numbers.

[rf] What do you have to handle or emulate the synergetic energy flow and structural coding occurring at the same moment? 

It is not obvious. It required Gödel. Today we know that even just one Diophantine Polynomial of degree four is enough (but that is another story).

Now, from within my NSD storyline, I am observing that you are sort of forced to make this mis-step because you don't have a model of "consciousness”,

I don’t need one, and a theory of consciousness emerge in the discourse of the self-referentially correct machine which observes itself.

[rf] So, you think you can delegate the difficult task?  That would be nice. How will you verify the machine's story is true or provable?

The UDA is build so that we don’t need any theory of consciousness to understand the reversal. Only that it is invariant for some physical digital transformation. The rest follows by reasoning and computer science/mathematical logic.

[rf] You mean, for instance, a person is having a conversation and then the Doctor uploads him and removes his brain and does the substitution and downloads and the person continues in the conservation? 

...snip  

The incompleteness theorem makes “provability” into a belief, not a knowledge. But we get a notion of knowledge by a local conjunct with truth.

[rf]  Or... we get the incompleteness theorem that makes "provability" into a belief, not a knowledge, because that storyline on truth lacks appreciation of reality being nested structured~duality.

Why? I don’t see that, and you really need to explain “nested structured-duality”, if possible, axiomatically, which is a way to avoid metaphysical baggage in the language used.

[rf] Axiomatic by me is doubtful.  And I may be mistaking truth with belief. For instance, I am thinking of an example where Newton's notion of gravity was dominant (true) and then Einstein's notion of gravity emerged and became the new "true".   Or is that belief or a knowledge?

That makes possible to “reapply” Theaetetus theory of knowledge. It refutes Socrates critics (and others). 

[rf] By "reapply",  I notice you going to the nested structure well again, wearing your blindfold.

The modal logics which appears are nested, like with “I know p implies that I know that I know p”.

From outside, we use the semantic of arithmetic, and set theory if needed, and the numbers inside will have that freedom to.

[rf] Inside, outside, semantic... more un-sub-conscious nested structured~duality. 

Many ignore the discovery of the universal machine, and its rich self-referential logic, operating at different level.

[rf] Self-referential...   different level...    so it comes as no surprise to observe nested structured~duality   is universal machine and vise versa.

But I think it is better not to idolise any srtucture. I use number because they are know by everybody. From that I explains, using mechanism, the appearance of the qualia and quanta, and the infinitely many nesting of realty/dreams.

That a pattern appears everywhere is not a sign of deepness or interestingness, especially if you are not able to define it either axiomatically, or in some other axiomatic theory, like set theory. If not you might do interesting, but unsharable work, I’m afraid.

[rf] That sounds accurate.  Fitting in the gaps while paradigms shift and change.

My assumption of mechanism is low, in the sense that the substitution level is not bounded in advance. No universal machine can know its substitution level, but can make bet: being alive is being able to die, but conscious is different, it becomes a fixed point of the self-transformations.

[rf]  Substitution level?   Substitution level of what? 

It is the level of description of the brain used for the transplants. A high level, like the neuronal states, will be cheaper than a low level, like the quantum state of the brain including entanglements, etc. It is the number of Kb to store your soul. 

[rf] So, it's level of physical reality as in removing all neurons and replacing with a digital unit?    How does that work for the energy flow in the respiration reaction that's internal to biological neurons?   Also, with ordered water structural influences internal to neurons helping to adjust synapse alignments? Do those features just get erased or ignored at the substitution? 

[rf] Aren't the similarities somewhat predictible or expectable given that you are using similar wave/particle -- true/false multiple-state patterns and similar ~logic and axioms to develop both?

start accumulating, where the anomalous data/observation typically prompt for shifting to a different level of perspcetive (transcend; move inward...). For instance, Madam Curie's photographic plates mysteriously developing images   in a closed lab drawer nearby to some radioactive pitchblend.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set”. 

There are many nested structures. The Mandelbrot set is a typical set (of complex numbers) which illustrates a fundamental super form of self nesting. Each mini-brot copy its neighbourhood integrally 2, 4, 8, 16, … 2^n, …. Around itself! Yet, is “made” only of little Mandelbrot sets, making its fractal hausdorf dimension 2.

It could be a compact universal dovetailing, in which case it is “home”.

Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD’s.

You need to define NSD. But you might do idolatry for a structure. What is nice with mechanism is that we have the tools to reason independently of the mathematical structure chosen. 

[rf] NSD = nested structured~duality.

That is not a definition. You need to say what you assume, and define “nested”, “structure”, “duality”.

Pick a structure; pick a duality (or pick a couple of dualities/differences); build outward to the limits of those initial conditions; rinse and repeat -- nest the structured dualities. 

[rf] If you or I pick idolatry as structure, what is the complementary, helpful or necessary pick for the duality? Rules are rules so it's pick a structure AND a duality.  It's an offhand  guess on my part, but  I think idolatry is not a structure but is already an NSD or some type of conglomerate.    

[rf] I will try to stay open to the niceties of mechanism and I am vaguely aware of the importance and strength of abstract mathematical modeling even though I am inept at it.

I can help, if your interest is genuine. When people have problem in math, it is 99,9% of the case a psychological problem, due to bad teaching.

Like Gauss said, mathematics is the simplest of all science. It can be hard to find something, but it is easy to verify the findings of the others. It needs only work and patience.

  But with my present closed-world mechanism, I also observe that ALL of ALL our expressions are riding on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized   cwb (carbon-water-based) internal nested structural coding and we forge and store and cipher in those ~chemically completed creations. 

That does not necessarily proves more than some (Turing) universality of your system, which is not defined enough precisely to be proved so.

Anyway, it assumes the things I want to explain, like carbon, electron, etc. 

And, somehow, structurally coding via these ~tetrahedral patterns allows mathematicians and logicians to reason and cipher and express in the great variety of ways that they do.  

I prefer to start from the simple. How would you explain the NSD to a kid?

[rf] 1) Hold a magnetic

That has been to be explained. With mechanism, we cannot assume something physical. 

[rf] Huh? You ask a question. I answer it. You interrupt from your rule base? Are you saying I can't use my preferred analog math symbols? 

Dialing back a couple of steps, my root assumption is "reality is nested structured~duality". Then I pick tetrahedron for  structure and attraction-repulsion for the duality. Then I create the analog math (magnetic tetrahedron)  so as to open the tactile communications channel into physical intuition.

Which rule are you saying  I am breaking?

tetrahedron in  hands with eyes closed or imagine holding one (https://magnetictetrahedra.com/phpshow.php (advance  to the right image)). Give or imagine giving each of the four magnets one-half spin end-for-end in succession. On each step, use the probe magnet to feel the polarity (attraction or repulsion) at the four outer vertices (magnet ends). Count and name the different states. Count and name the different states. Repeat a couple of times with eyes open (or closed).  3) Place, the n2s2 unit in a cubic cardboard or plexiglas box with vertices always at the same four corners of the cube. Use the probe magnet to determine the location of the two attractive vertices. Re-orient those vertices in as many ways as you can and count the different states.  Repeat with the other  states identified in step 1. The structured~duality of this instance is "tetrahedron/north-south (or attraction-repulsion).  3) Imagine repeating with octahedron and other regular polyhedra for structure.   

I present results, verified by peers (and contested by people invoking conviction). My work is of the type: if you believe in this and this, then you have to believe in this and this, or invoke a god or magic. That is an error in science, even in the theological science. 

[rf] What is it that you say is an error in science and theological science?

To invoke things like “reality”, “truth”,  “god” … in the course of an explanation or proof.

It is indeed illuminating to see how the self-observing machine, staying correct in the process, can already say about the subject.

[rf] Ignoring "self-observing" or assigning it as a feature of the Subconscious Step 0,

I insist. The subconscious step 0 is either the definition of “computationalism” or “digital mechanism”, as an hypothesis in the cognitive science, or the theorem that all human experiences are emulated in arithmetic, once we suppose computationalism. Keep in mind that I assume computationalism as my working hypothesis, if only to get some contradictions, but we get only quantum mechanics. 

[rf] What do you mean?  As in getting the "Shut up and calculate" pattern?  That is, how is it that you "get only quantum mechanics" -- roughly, in English?  I mean, do you have a program that is generating addition (incrementing) calculations on increments which you think are just the positive integers (each differing from the adjacent one by one equal increment), and, What? , then does your program explore alleged sub-divisions of the increments at some smaller scale  or generate regular tetrahedra or similar space-filling structures of incremental edge length?  And something in those patterns reminds you of signaling "getting quantum mechanics"?   What is the change in mechanism/computational pattern  that seems to tip you off?

Looking for a particular pattern in true-false doesn't seem to be that different from exploring/generating  similar wave-particle or quanta-qualia duality patterns.   You know, IF the one writing and assessing the program and results  is also not aware  that their numbers, ~AR widgets, and incrementing operations are also instances of nested structured~duality, so you may seek  certain patterns in  true-false, indicating "contradiction", but instead, the program spews  other, non-contradition-signaling patterns of true-false.   You may think it weird but it (oscillation) may be the only way the program signals "continuing..." or continuity.

Alternatively,  I seem to remember that Henry Stapp at Quantum Mind  in Tucson (2003) expressed something like that dysfunctional family patterns (of which I have some familiarity and first-hand experience)  exhibit quantum mechanical-like patterns.  For instance, once a false 1p persona is formed as an adaptation to group dysfunction/trauma, group members have  multiple 1pp ~states  or "roles". Getting such a  ~system to collapse or re-orient so it operates in an assumed possible non-dysfunctional way is not a trivial, or perhaps very realistic operation.   So, your program may be "working" and the weird quantum mechanical-like results are just confirming/reflecting  various dual 1pp  "good-bad", "day-night", "attractive-repulsive", "devine-mundane" states or  natures or oscillations.

I can sort of relate (see the above description for showing NSD to a kid).  Although I might say today that the mechanism of a magnetic tetrahedron unfolds to show nested structured~duality  and NSD-related variable mass density multiple states, and sp^3 hybridized structural coding, etc.   But, in my view, it (this mechanism) does so due to the specific instance of nested structured~duality (tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion).

I am amazed that a small set of reasonable beliefs leads quickly to making us doubting Aristotle, and making sense of Plato.

It is alas technical, today. 

[rf] Why do you suppose it is so technical, today, in the storyline you present?

Because you need to have a good idea of what is computer or universal machine, to realise that the computations are done in virtue of existing number relations, etc.

Mechanism relies on computer science and mathematical logic. That is why I study it: we can derive precise and testable statements.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider. 

Also, in your modeling

It is not a modelling. It is an act of faith. I study the consequence of assuming that this act of faith is correct.

When you say yes for a prosthesis, it is not a model/theory, it is your life. 

[rf] Maybe I am wrong, but I get the impression you have not pulled the trigger yet except to repeat the expressions  and hypothesize a plausible or potential comp possibility that you find interesting.  Me, after noticing the floating or potential  Subconscious Step 0 in the mix, so far I'm leery and skittish and will hold back, awaiting positive and consistent reports of increased bliss and happiness of a large number of early adopters. 

Science is not wishful thinking. If truth makes anyone quite unhappy, we can be sad, but can’t lie for that reason. Searching truth is not a recipe for happiness a priori. Almost the contrary. You are usually burned or buried alive or worse, even well before being understood. Then the truth itself might not be such more making us happy. 

[rf] I'm still skeptical. Also, do you equate science with truth?  I mean,  I see science more as  successive approximations where we agree upon tenets and a paradigm, and then, Oops!, anomalies arise and we meander over to a different set of tenets and a revised  paradigm which can acquire multiple 1p +1p agreements. But is that what you consider as truth? 

Also, let's say one substitution appears to work then another and another does that auto-generate the Matrix machines vs man scenario?  Sort of like there are benefits to various wonder drugs or GMO's but then the unanticipated side-effects start to pop out?  Also, once you have just AR and no empirical validation how does science progress or change?

Pardon my anxious worries if what you are marketing is true utopia.

But the consequences are the greater in metaphysics/ Plato is right and Aristotle is wrong. What we see is only the shadow of the universal mind, or cosmic consciousness. Many here seem to have that intuition. Then I show that all (Gödel-Löbian) universal machine share that intuition too, in a so precise way that we can test it, and so maybe test the present of some primary matter, also.

[rf]  And so, we wait.   

But the main test have been done, and we get the needed quantisation exactly where we need them. Of course no test proves any theory. But we can still hope a refutation. Without it, we can only use the simplest theory which explains the most. Computationalism is at billions years away of predicting as well as physics (but that is not his goal), but is the only theory which predicts and explains consciousness and matter, qualia and quanta, with quantitative prediction.

[rf] Other than the analog (cwb) thing itself  that has already been  doing and validating the various instances of structural coding for a while.  Again,  try to imagine the differences between not having and having a somewhat functional model of structural coding (what you and others think of as "consciousness").    In the absence of having such a model, you delegate the task to Turing machines or emulations, assuming or hoping you can grasp the signals when they arrive in billions of years. What is the likelihood of that, though?

I am wondering if there is one mechanism or many? 

There one, and many one, and many. The universal numbers all plays the role of a “one”, with its Plotinian-like theology. But most machines re not universal, and among the universal the differentiation has a quite large spectrum.

All mechanism, or computable digital processes are implemented in the arithmetical reality. That is a theorem in computer science, that we have to take into account when assuming mechanism.

[rf] So, there are many mechanisms.      But when you say, "when assuming mechanism", isn't that being a bit circular? 

Why?

I don't know if my approach is any different.

It assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.

[rf] I sort of hear you, but I think you are also jumping on the ~physical (only) description, sort of like too quickly applying an inappropriate  prejudicial racial slur.   It is sort of true that I do start with the answer, but that answer is "structure is fundamental" (which has a Platonic ring to it)   and  "reality is nested structured~duality", which, I guess is my more unified extension of the 'answer'.   Then I pick tetrahedron for structure and attraction-repulsion for duality, and THEN I implement that pattern in the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron, which I am sort of thinking is also perfectly acceptable (analog) mathematics akin to the cwb (carbon-water-based) analog mathematics.  So, my analog math implementation reflects the "answer" while also empirically validating itself through the tactile channel -- by delivering, in the local case here, physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states differing by increments of one-half spin and mirroring the sp^3 hybridized bonding pattern of our and our surroundings' molecular ontology.   So, you can say I am assuming something physical, but if you look closer, I start out with a few mental artifacts and then scribble out the analog math which is ~physical.

I would humbly suggest that  you try to reconsider   your either-or, push-pull  dance with Plato and Aristotle.  They both have different instances of nested structured~duality, like I do and like you and others do.    So, if you get your instance set up in a certain way, yes, you can get signals that appear to refute or verify one or the other.  Okay.  Proof of small-minded prejudice.   That is, notice, both are helpful and in a wave-particle system such as ours, both instances are reflective of  our local conditions.  

  I ~assume  or assert "reality is nested structured~duality" then fashion an analog mechanism (magnetic tetrahedron)

That assumes quite a lot. 

[rf] I suppose that seems quite true from within the ~Cartesian "Cube/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality   where you are necessarily required to/used to doing math separate from empirical validation. Also, where you start out with point-line-plane-multiplanes and not just with tetrahedron as the functional, conceptual start point.   But, once the few statements are expressed the magnitude of the pattern recognition hit in terms of where and how frequently the sp^3 hybridized pattern is encountered -- it may not be "proof", but it is quite convincing.

that provides physical intuition on states and variable mass density, and ~the or ~a dominant  pattern of  our ontology and surroundings, and coding of our representations of our ontology and surroundings, etc.,  and then I learn/discover that it's a mechanism -- but that seems a bit superfluous or unnecessary along the storyline I advocate.  

It cannot be a mechanism, unless you derive the NSD formally from 2+2=4 & Co.

[rf] So are you saying ~physical reality or NSD is not a mechanism?  How did the ancient derive tetrahedron? Also, if I label magnet ends as  -1/+1, or an arrow in one direction and another arrow in the opposite direction, both labeled in plus-minus fashion does that fit within your constraints?   I'm just asking -- not thinking yet that such an exercise would make sense to me that I recognize. 

 Also, is delivering physical intuition an alternate measure or demonstration of effectiveness of a model or theory -- alternate to, say, formal expression or Popper-like falsifiability -- particularly for models supporting both ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes?

It depends. When not doing the math, and the experiences, it becomes to look like a personal report, which might make sense for more people later, or not. 

You better always explain your ideas in term of the ideas the other are familiar with.

Kind regards,

Bruno

[rf]  I think I could flippantly and somewhat accurately say, "I did the (analog) math in my head (or it did me).",although I really externalized the analog math and it taught me. Otherwise, I  suggest my expressions are  like an echo or magnetized or energized translation of relations and expressions presented by R. Buckminster Fuller in the last century. However, I understand what you mean and I deeply appreciate that and all of your other kind and informative advice. I will endeavor to improve.

OK. Good. Have a nice Sunday! 

Best,

Bruno

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

...

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/8A2AFC3F-7065-4783-B479-F479F06E8FA3%40ulb.ac.be.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno,

Some clarification  regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

..snip..

[bm] It [the approach/trial theory rf advocates] assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.

[rf]  

I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical".  The difference, though, I think, is 

(1) you are assuming math and logic artifacts (~mental things) so you can logically derive ~physical things as features of the arithmetic reality as ~proved/able if someone survives the comp/digital mechanism substitution... while you also delegate to supposedly friendly and humane Turing devices for them to scribble out  the or an associated model of consciousness,  

whereas,

(2)  I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality  (R=NSD),  which prompts me to start with a specific structured~duality and then scribble out analog math that  ~verifies the assumption  by/while demonstrating the capacity to convey physical intuition about physical reality and our ontology while also  illuminating structural coding as an improved  replacement for (substitution of) the term and features we previously labeled and know as "consciousness". 

Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive  ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in my NSD storyline I assume NSD and use ~physical reality/analog math, aiming toward a "model of consciousness" while verifying my (R=NSD) assumption, and doing some other things, synergistically, along the way.

Then, where you say, """If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”."""...

Firstly, I am assuming NSD as primary (primitive). 

Secondly, magnetic tetrahedron analog math certainly seems to me to be a mechanism that  is recognizable/familiar  within patterns in (applied) computer science, so if there is an incompatibility, isn't it more so with the digital mechanism or due to slowness in its emulation?

I get the vague impression that in you assuming I am starting by assuming physical reality, I am seeing "my result"  as potentially already at the intermediate intersection of your ~two-step program, say, where the digital substitution step has (finally) been, or is to be  achieved. 

Rather than say  I assume the answer/~physical reality, notice how fast my first step passed by and and then how  "my analog math result" approximates the digital/comp result that your herd of Turing devices will/may/is supposed to finally settle on. Then, in my next step of the development, magnetic tetrahedron has already output physical intuition on physical reality, and, as you might logically expect from the CompSci POV,  intermingling with our ~biology  it describes a model of structural coding rather than, and in place of, the anticipated  "model of consciousness".  (Potentially relegating the term "consciousness" into the same bin containing "phlogiston".]

So, I encourage you to notice I am not starting out assuming physical reality as primary or a primitive. I'm starting out with a different tenet or set of tenets (R=NSD), and that intersects, or more precisely,  when I get around to my analog math in my second step, that analog math intersects with the end of your theory's first step, if or when,   where you have evidence or ~proof of digital mechanism equivalence with physical reality (because the (proposed future) electro-mechanical-comp device inducing the substitution to occur and the person surviving).  

Thus, at that point, your Turing devices would have allegedly derived carbon, electron, and ~physical reality for you and the devices could then chew on or begin developing or outputting instances of physical  intuition as "proof of consciousness" to go along with the Turing devices  completing their assigned (delegated) task to scribble out a model of consciousness -- for you.

So, I am not seeing a mechanism incompatibility issue you are referring to unless you are meaning a digital mechanism incompatibility. I do see some speed or rather slowness issues with the digital mechanism, in its current state, but that likely can be improved. 

Also, might I suggest that conveying increments of physical intuition might have some value as "proof of consciousness" or as an AI test/demonstration, if it is not already included in the current list? This seems to work pretty well in (~6^n) analog and it seems to me  like it could or should work in clever 2^n digital.  Or, perhaps that can be an intermediate or provisional digital comp test  -- if you catch my drift.  (And, you folks have not already passed by that marker.)

Thoughts?

Best regards, 

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Jan 2018, at 04:01, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,

In continuing my reading of SANE04 I see that after the 8 steps you go through associating what I am considering human traits such as "modesty", etc.,   with classical logic symbol patterns.  To me, perhaps because I structurally coded my complaint BEFORE consuming your account, I still think that you breach your Sub-hypothesis#3 "independently" term separating AR from "me, you, humanity, physical reality (if exists)..." but I can imagine that you probably see it otherwise and probably for good reason. 

Perhaps because of traits of the rather physical/structured-duality model I advocate as running within our organism,    I believe I see that the ordering of "constructive learning" --the order in which one builds their model/facts/understanding-- plays a role, at least for me,  particularly in structurally coding in the cwb organism. 

I also notice that your notion about getting physics from at least (1pp plus 1pp plural) polling operations coincides  somewhat with the storyline I have come  up with of shifting from the ~Cartesian 2-bin subjective-objective scheme to what I call the "spectrum of repeatable subjectivity" (srs).

This spectrum has unique, rare, stochastic, periodic, consistent or invariant... segments of repeatable subjectivity, or *feels*, or experiences. 

OK. But I can only guess and re-interpret what you say in terms I can understand. You need to define all the terms you re using if you want make a scientific publication/communication. 

Stuff in the 'consistent or invariant' segment (what I also call 'strongly repeating') is what is typically called "objective" within the dominant 2-bin scheme. But that label is only conferred  after multiple 1pp experiences (albeit, maybe at different national labs) are replicated -- getting  consistent, repeatable results.  So, I am thinking that pattern ~fits with your 1pp plus 1pp plural condition,

It is not mine. It comes from what the machines already tell us.

although I assume you also have an added constraint somewhere where, for physics, you are hopeful for having essentially complete replication of all 1pp assessments -- at least for the current period until new insights/contradictions are gained and the entire scientific tenets and paradigm changes to an improved 1pp plus 1pp plural POV. Thus, perhaps your mechanism needs to be able to carry two or more competing 1pp plus 1pp plural models for the dominant and provisional instances. Do your mechanism/machine/logic rules  have that capability, Bruno, or would those need to be add-ons?

That is given by the 1pp (first person plural) automatically. Keep in mind that I assume only elementary arithmetic in the formal derivation. Even Mechanism can be abandoned at this stage, although it helps for the intuitive understanding. The physics we get should just be verified, which needs some work, already done in a small (bit non trivial) part. 

Similarly, I suppose, for  people who report having ~rare experiences, say, an NDE, or other varieties of religious experience.  Such accounts  may be over in the "rare" category in the srs, but it is still a consensual ~quasi-agreement on the 1pp plus 1pp plural  *feel*. But, unlike the invariant experiences, the experiencing and the agreement is not so highly repeating and/or is apparently blurred across a couple of levels of nested structure.

Were you to adopt this srs scheme then perhaps your metaphysics and theology stories might collapse to just varying on current or local frequency.   I seem to think that would be a simplifying feature, but it may be a bug from other perspectives.

You lost me here. 

Additionally, I  see where you go through so-called interrogating machines to associate belief-logic-knowledge notation patterns with "modesty" and other human traits.

The work modesty has been used by Robert Parick and Raymond Smullyan in this context. The theology of the machines is derivable from arithmetic, but even more easily derived from one special theorem of arithmetic. That theorem says that if the machine can prove “provable p implies p” then the machine can prove p. It makes the machine modest, in the sense that it asserts its correctness ([]p -> p) only for what it actually proves.

Incidentally, this introduces also a form of wishful thinking to the machine, which works!

You might read the “recreative” book by Raymond Smullyan, which is an introduction to the modal logic of self-reference G and G*. But it is a bit quick on the relations with arithmetic and computer science.

However, I am not (so far) seeing, nor have I read where you reference logic symbols  packages for showing the machines' ability to, say, deliver or emulate delivering "physical intuition" and/or "creativity".  Have I missed this or just not read far enough?  Or do you just have-wavingly assume it in "assuming one survives the substitution?

No. You must probably read some reference in the papers. It is a lot of work, but not as much as quantum mechanics or General relativity. Mathematical logics is still a recent science, but not a simple one. You need ti study a good book in logic, like Mendelson, or the two recent books by Raymond Smullyan ("a beginners’s guide to mathematical logic” and “a beginners’s further guide to Mathematical Logic”). 

[As an aside,  I believe or understand I can survive  a lobotomy with knitting needles  through my eye sockets,  but I haven't read of the underlying AR spontaneously kicking in to re-establish creativity or physical intuition. My point is surviving is one thing; having equal or better traits is another.]

AR does not play that role. It gives only the frame in which the soul will “create” the physical reality making that possible. But this sentence can be ambiguous. You “just" have to understand the whole reasoning.

Do you have such logic statement association patterns already developed for the traits of  physical intuition and creativity for your digital mechanisms, like you have for "modesty", etc.?  

Yes, by the main axiom related to the arithmetical interpretation of each points of view. ([]p =Gödel’s arithmetical provability predicate). P is a sigma_1 sentence (meaning: a semi-computable arithmetical proposition).

p. (None)

[]p.  (3p, Main axiom = modesty = Löb = []([]p->p) -> []p)

[]p & p (1p, main axiom = Grzegroczyk = []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p

[]p & <>t (first person plural “observable” 1pp, main axiom: (too long to be given here), but it is the answer to your question. It rises all by itself.

(Then we have also []p & <>t & p, for the sensibility associated to observation, qualia)

All this is derived from very elementary arithmetic:

0 ≠ (x + 1)

((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)

x + 0 = x

x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1

x * 0 = 0

x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

Nothing else is assumed, not even the induction axioms, despite you need them in the definition of the observers to which the logic above applies.

My first guess is  such logic statements might not exist -- or my bias is to cling to such only as in the province of  our cbw human organism arrangements.

It works on all machine which believes in the axioms just above, together with classical logic on that number realm).

But also I vaguely see myself claiming that interrogating a magnetic tetrahedron (mechanism) on what one gets when  it steps through its  possible  half-spins and nesting within an enfolding  cube (field),  does generate or deliver physical intuition (in my cwb system)  on variable mass density multiple states differing in increments of one-half-spin.

You have to develop that much further. But I am aware of the hardness of the task, as you need a some course in mathematics.

But, is this physical intuition just available to cwb organisms like you and I and others due to the interactive tool use and symmetry of the specific tool patterns with universal cwb symmetries?  Or, can units of physical intuition and creativity  be created and delivered via  Turing machines and/or Turing emulations in a  straightforward way? 

Nobody can know, but that is part of the mechanist assumption. If daemon substitute your water based brain during the night for a silicon computer, by definition you would not be aware of the change.

 

It seems to me like nesting would be involved to get/deliver units of  physical intuition in machines or organisms.  Do you have such classical logic symbols and statement  association patterns already developed for the traits of  physical intuition and creativity?

Yes. Universal machine are so creative that Emil Post named them “creative set” (before that notion was proved equivalent with the notion of universal machine). OK. It is just a wording, but it illustrate that creativity might be he mark of the universal machine.  For the physical, you need the nuance []p & <>t, like above, with p restricted to sigma_1. 

If  not, does that sort of imply that once one goes through the proposed digital mechanism substitution a known  or potential side-effect, which should be listed on the side of the pill box or on the waiver agreement, is probable loss of  developing or  having/retaining physical intuition, creativity, and the ability to change paradigms?

Assuming that mechanism is false. You are right. But then non-mechanism does not see to answer this either, and most non-mechanist just invoke a primitive physical reality instead, which I find a quite premature move. It is never good to assume a god in scientific theology, like we do not assume the whole arithmetical reality in any arithmetical axiom.

On another point, regarding a machine not being able to ~name itself or say what kind of machine it is, 

Tha machine is able to name or describe itself, but not in a provable or knowable way. (That was Penrose initial mistake). 

I observe something similar in the 6^n structural coding and hydrogen-bonding influence-in-protein-folding-to-get-words, where 'a person' could be running on ~any value of n  (6^6, 6^12, 6^23) and still have ~functional  internal representations and expressions along with their peers -- but where the individual  is clueless on which specific 6^n s/he is running. The choice of n might affect vocabulary or cleverness, but, would not preclude some functionality.  Also, in the 6^n ordered water cwb mechanism, words get sounded out ~downstream, after initial structural coding in ordered water and so ~names are always coming from "outside", or in consensus with subsequent or prior generations. (Thus, our parents name us -- before our cumulative actions ~name or characterize us further.) Thus we have an ineffable feeling before we coin a new term, say, for the underlying general principle.  The machine that created the machine would likely be tasked with naming its creations.

Overall, Bruno, I think  central differences between our storylines are, you are assuming or testing something roughly like "reality is Arithmetical Realism”,

No. I test Digital Mechanism. AR is only part of it, and everyone believe in it (except some Sunday Philosophers). 

whereas  I am saying/assuming "reality is nested structured~duality (NSD)”. 

That is not precise enough. We just cannot assume a “reality” (provably so in the mechanist theory, but it was known in the greek metaphysics). I mean, if you do science, you have to assume only simple principle, and not the answer already. I don’t know what is “reality”, nor “nested” which presuppose a space, a topology, perhaps a metric. 

From my perspective, in your Sub-hypothesis#3 you say that AR is true "independently" from "me, you, humanity, physical reality...", whereas, I view that NSD is the common denominator underlying what we presently consider as the "mental" and the "physical" realms.  

From my POV, I consider all of your YD+CT+AR and SANE04 expressions  are mental artifacts which you pose or consider as "true independently of" (I see it as separate from)  "me, you, humanity, physical reality" ... ~physical artifacts. 

I assume Mechanism. The idea that there is no magic playing some role in the brain/body (make “modern” through the discovery of the universal digital machine by Turing).

 I suspect, though, that you more see that there is only ~AR, sort of like on some days I see there is only NSD

AR is taught in primary school. NSD is not yet clear to me, despite my valiant effort to push you toward clarification.

and the ~mental and ~physical categories are only available to us or considered by us due to these being features of the paradigm we have already learned or acquired. 

FWIW, I sort of see your   AR "independently true of"  [you,me, humanity] as perhaps an excessive and unrealistic  or inappropriate dissociation, or perhaps like you are idolizing numbers/AR when ALL of its facets and features could be like extremely persistent, functional ~quales embedded within our cwb being.   I guess that is what you suggest or aim to test. 

If mechanism is refuted by nature, I will conclude that we are not machine (or that we are in a malevolent simulation, to be exact).

Honestly, that will not give us a reason to doubt AR, which is just the belief that 2+2=4. 

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

My approach may be quite an approximation, but the magnetic tetrahedron also does deliver physical intuition

It tooks me years of work to understand that I will never understand magnetism, nor gravitation, unless deriving the whole of physics from simpler. Einstein also understood that electromagnetism was a mysterious, and his attempt to clarify led him to special and general relativity. 

The tetrahedron is different, we have quickly a notion (the greeks got them) of tetrahedral numbers:

You have the triangular numbers: 1, 3, 6, 10, … (which are the initial sums of the natural numbers, i.e. 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, ...), and the tetrahedral numbers are given by the initial sums of the triangular numbers 1, 1+3, 1+3+6, 1+3+6+10, … = 1, 4, 10, 20,  … 

But magnetism is a while different story With mechanism we have not yet any notion of force, nor even of space or time. We have only the propositional quantum logic. It is still an open problem if the notion of force is physical with Mechanism, this is equivalent with(derivable from arithmetical self-reference) or geographical. It is not much, but the goal is in explaining quanta and qualia (here physics fails, and with mechanism: has to fail).

on much of our, and our surroundings'  ontology, as well as on variable mass density multiple states differing by increments of one-half spin -- out of the box.

...more below... some snipped away -- couple items of interest very neer the end…

OK. I stop here, and will look at the rest later. I snip this mail for being sure it go through. If you want me to comment the answer below, do not answer this present mail to quickly. I will answer your other comment when I have more time, as I have to go.

Just looking quickly, you still seem to put to much in AR. You do philosophy before doing the science, I would say. But I need to run …

Kind regards,

Bruno

[Ralph Frost]

Dear Bruno, 

Thank you for your reply and your many informative and helpful statements below and elsewhere.  As for you replying to more content in the source post, I'd prefer to  read your impressions on the separate "...(assuming R=NSD)" subject line, and let the other go. 

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 30 Jan 2018, at 04:01, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,

In continuing my reading of SANE04 I see that after the 8 steps you go through associating what I am considering human traits such as "modesty", etc.,   with classical logic symbol patterns.  To me, perhaps because I structurally coded my complaint BEFORE consuming your account, I still think that you breach your Sub-hypothesis#3 "independently" term separating AR from "me, you, humanity, physical reality (if exists)..." but I can imagine that you probably see it otherwise and probably for good reason. 

Perhaps because of traits of the rather physical/structured-duality model I advocate as running within our organism,    I believe I see that the ordering of "constructive learning" --the order in which one builds their model/facts/understanding-- plays a role, at least for me,  particularly in structurally coding in the cwb organism. 

I also notice that your notion about getting physics from at least (1pp plus 1pp plural) polling operations coincides  somewhat with the storyline I have come  up with of shifting from the ~Cartesian 2-bin subjective-objective scheme to what I call the "spectrum of repeatable subjectivity" (srs).

This spectrum has unique, rare, stochastic, periodic, consistent or invariant... segments of repeatable subjectivity, or *feels*, or experiences. 

OK. But I can only guess and re-interpret what you say in terms I can understand. You need to define all the terms you re using if you want make a scientific publication/communication. 

[rf] In my way of thinking, I think I've already defined most of the important things well enough. The old scientific paradigm is roughly  like ~this; the emerging scientific paradigm emphasizes nested structure and duality as fundamentals and that change facilitates noticing paradigm bridge-like devices like the more unified spectrum of repeatable subjectivity as an improvement compared with the subjective-objective classification scheme. I will try to be open to your advice about what it takes to make a scientific publication/communication, but truthfully, I'm hopeful for development of a few more "paradigm-bridges" to appear which I think will compensate for the lack of familiar "scientific definition and rigor". 

In my storyline,  my impression when we encounter something new (for me, like logic , comp and digital mechanism; for you, NSD and srs, for instance), is we have to structurally code -- build -- memories and associations within our internal analog structurally coding language/make-up. And ~learning isn't immediate but requires repetition and deciphering  from usage and from uses in different contexts -- over periods of days, not minutes.  ...A bit like kneading and re-solving multiple equations with multiple unknowns, except in our cases our internal analog language is also like a self-healing system where it can only structurally code things in terms of its self and our ~basic physical intuition/existing paradigm, which, itself is coded internally, say, in stacks of ordered water, or synaptic arrangements and activity patterns, for example.     Or, as you may visualize it, in patterns and relations of numbers  or networked primes, or angles and frequencies, or stacks of logic statements consuming tables of numbers.  

Now, you raise a very good point because "terms you can understand" actually drills down pretty deeply into the paradigm that you run -- what I would point at and label as your instance of nested structured~duality.  These also implicate the physical intuition we have already developed, or not, and whether we lean hard on intuition or on rationalization.   I think I have been pretty open with the fact that what I am presenting  and aiming at is to change the scientific paradigm, which may mean, even if you are in favor of some change, propositions I make may not be your cup of tea, or I present too much change, at which point is a safe and acceptable thing to resist or reject, or say, "I don't follow, or understand", because you/I really don't follow/understand , in  part because the new relations have not structurally coded in a sufficient way. 

I ~see NSD as a deeper type of introspection, or what everyone finds when they introspect a little bit more deeply. Particle-wave, matter-anti-matter, matter and dark matter, bobbling along in the local variable mass density -- what IS the underlying common pattern? Structured~duality.

That, and its feature of being the common denominator underlying  ~physical and ~mental realms, really should do it, unless the *feeling* of such a nested, oscillating  thing is too unsettling or disruptive. So, it likely would,  certainly initially, just be rejected. 

Similarly, for the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity (srs).  In the dominant paradigm, I point at the "~Cartesian 2-bin subjective-objective scheme" and contrast it with  srs having a few more compartments, over in the ~NSD paradigm.   The 2-bin subjective-objective categorization scheme which we all mostly ascribe to is actually like an impoverished model of consciousness where we just have the 2 categories:  situations/patterns/experiences that repeat strongly (which we  are taught to call "objective" and  "scientific"),  and everything else which isn't so consistent or regular (which we call "subjective" and "not scientific".   In a simple transition,  the entangled quantum mechanical patterns, which are  ~variable yet certainly "scientific", in the srs scheme would land in the stochastic region (although I likely may not be picking the exactly right term).  And, even at that, the word "entangled" or whatever the variants used, reveals the on-going blur of nested structure. Yet nested structure is not a general feature or a fundamental   in the ~dominant 2-bin subjective-objective "scientific" scheme. 

So, we run into these type of  anomalies in our scientific conceptual model that prompt for making one or two changing in our modeling schemes. 

Stuff in the 'consistent or invariant' segment (what I also call 'strongly repeating') is what is typically called "objective" within the dominant 2-bin scheme. But that label is only conferred  after multiple 1pp experiences (albeit, maybe at different national labs) are replicated -- getting  consistent, repeatable results.  So, I am thinking that pattern ~fits with your 1pp plus 1pp plural condition,

It is not mine. It comes from what the machines already tell us.

[rf] Do you mean "tell us" as in  looms built to a certain spec being able to weave consistent fabric?

although I assume you also have an added constraint somewhere where, for physics, you are hopeful for having essentially complete replication of all 1pp assessments -- at least for the current period until new insights/contradictions are gained and the entire scientific tenets and paradigm changes to an improved 1pp plus 1pp plural POV. Thus, perhaps your mechanism needs to be able to carry two or more competing 1pp plus 1pp plural models for the dominant and provisional instances. Do your mechanism/machine/logic rules  have that capability, Bruno, or would those need to be add-ons?

That is given by the 1pp (first person plural) automatically. Keep in mind that I assume only elementary arithmetic in the formal derivation. Even Mechanism can be abandoned at this stage, although it helps for the intuitive understanding. The physics we get should just be verified, which needs some work, already done in a small (bit non trivial) part. 

[rf] I'm skeptical.  I very well could be wrong but I think you assume the entire apparatus of classical logic, and other things.  That's my hunch. Also, the physics your Turing devices are to spin out are of a different type than all human-related, empirically verified physics, right?  -- Computed  in accord with (an assumed) a more perfect arithmetic union?  Or, is you model set up so your machines can round off and say, "close enough for present loads and tolerances"?

Similarly, I suppose, for  people who report having ~rare experiences, say, an NDE, or other varieties of religious experience.  Such accounts  may be over in the "rare" category in the srs, but it is still a consensual ~quasi-agreement on the 1pp plus 1pp plural  *feel*. But, unlike the invariant experiences, the experiencing and the agreement is not so highly repeating and/or is apparently blurred across a couple of levels of nested structure.

Were you to adopt this srs scheme then perhaps your metaphysics and theology stories might collapse to just varying on current or local frequency.   I seem to think that would be a simplifying feature, but it may be a bug from other perspectives.

You lost me here. 

[rf] It's a guess on my part, but I think you might agree that things and features in metaphysics generally have a frequency different from frequencies of things and features in theology.   If so, then what you have is things and features  occurring at different frequencies, which ( through resonance) could also manifest other apparent influences at other frequencies. You may describe something as a metaphysics signal or theological signal but that could just be a feature of the scheme you have imposed. 

Additionally, I  see where you go through so-called interrogating machines to associate belief-logic-knowledge notation patterns with "modesty" and other human traits.

The work modesty has been used by Robert Parick and Raymond Smullyan in this context. The theology of the machines is derivable from arithmetic, but even more easily derived from one special theorem of arithmetic. That theorem says that if the machine can prove “provable p implies p” then the machine can prove p. It makes the machine modest, in the sense that it asserts its correctness ([]p -> p) only for what it actually proves.

Incidentally, this introduces also a form of wishful thinking to the machine, which works!

You might read the “recreative” book by Raymond Smullyan, which is an introduction to the modal logic of self-reference G and G*. But it is a bit quick on the relations with arithmetic and computer science.

[rf] Such modesty sounds alien to me, wouldn't you agree?  Not that it would hurt if I could prove more (or anything).     But doesn't that feature of a machine mean that it/they would be incapable of   stumbling onto, say, how to make cement (by calcining --roasting ground-up seashells)  for use in making reinforced concrete? That is, okay, not withstanding that your machines would not need to consider or consider doing such a physical thing, but they considered a pile of shells they would prove they were hard to grind into flour and they could rightly assert that and that would be the end to it.   That is, there would be no accidental discoveries, or developments from observing secondary  consequences.  Or does classical logic have axioms for doing things in uncontrolled conditions and being curious about unplanned outcomes, etc.?

However, I am not (so far) seeing, nor have I read where you reference logic symbols  packages for showing the machines' ability to, say, deliver or emulate delivering "physical intuition" and/or "creativity".  Have I missed this or just not read far enough?  Or do you just have-wavingly assume it in "assuming one survives the substitution?

No. You must probably read some reference in the papers. It is a lot of work, but not as much as quantum mechanics or General relativity. Mathematical logics is still a recent science, but not a simple one. You need ti study a good book in logic, like Mendelson, or the two recent books by Raymond Smullyan ("a beginner’s guide to mathematical logic” and “a beginner’s further guide to Mathematical Logic”). 

[rf] I appreciate the encouragement and maybe references those will help any other readers, but you are talking to a person who was/is rather baffled by doing proofs in geometry. It seriously did/does not compute with me. I likely need to equate my lostness with such material to the bewilderment people encounter with my accounts that I consider quite direct or clear...

  

[As an aside,  I believe or understand I can survive  a lobotomy with knitting needles  through my eye sockets,  but I haven't read of the underlying AR spontaneously kicking in to re-establish creativity or physical intuition. My point is surviving is one thing; having equal or better traits is another.]

AR does not play that role. It gives only the frame in which the soul will “create” the physical reality making that possible. But this sentence can be ambiguous. You “just" have to understand the whole reasoning.

[rf] Is there only one soul and  who only has  AR templates with which to "create" the physical reality?  And, more over,    what of  precursor soul(s)  who "created" the physical reality via the AR or one of their other options?    Is that physical reality  no longer manifest?  Are you saying AR is the only soul-ar game in town?

Do you have such logic statement association patterns already developed for the traits of  physical intuition and creativity for your digital mechanisms, like you have for "modesty", etc.?  

Yes, by the main axiom related to the arithmetical interpretation of each points of view. ([]p =Gödel’s arithmetical provability predicate). P is a sigma_1 sentence (meaning: a semi-computable arithmetical proposition).

p. (None)

[]p.  (3p, Main axiom = modesty = Löb = []([]p->p) -> []p)

[]p & p (1p, main axiom = Grzegroczyk = []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p

[]p & <>t (first person plural “observable” 1pp, main axiom: (too long to be given here), but it is the answer to your question. It rises all by itself.

(Then we have also []p & <>t & p, for the sensibility associated to observation, qualia)

All this is derived from very elementary arithmetic:

0 ≠ (x + 1)

((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)

x + 0 = x

x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1

x * 0 = 0

x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

Nothing else is assumed, not even the induction axioms, despite you need them in the definition of the observers to which the logic above applies.

My first guess is  such logic statements might not exist -- or my bias is to cling to such only as in the province of  our cbw human organism arrangements.

It works on all machine which believes in the axioms just above, together with classical logic on that number realm).

[rf] Impressive, and very terse.  Logic must be a very tight instance of nested structured~duality.  Can you describe , perhaps, say your Turing program was running and each time it landed on the "physical intuition" signal it had to run a subroutine which described the system it was chewing on and listed out the specific increments of physical intuition it was flagging. Would the output, say, relate to  analogies between making concrete columns and using logs to support loads -- and the potential advantages and thus need to calcine seashells?   Or what would the output be, say, for investigating an inclined plane?

But also I vaguely see myself claiming that interrogating a magnetic tetrahedron (mechanism) on what one gets when  it steps through its  possible  half-spins and nesting within an enfolding  cube (field),  does generate or deliver physical intuition (in my cwb system)  on variable mass density multiple states differing in increments of one-half-spin.

You have to develop that much further. But I am aware of the hardness of the task, as you need a some course in mathematics.

[rf]  It seems strange to me, too, but I observe that I made a magnetic tetrahedron in ~1981 and it wasn't until ~2015-16 that I noticed that describing the traits of the thing rather concisely comes out as: "Since the manual activity is like "wrench work", a person gets physical intuition on variable mass density (due to different levels of repulsion at the centers) of the n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4 (five) multiple states which arise in giving each magnet "one-half-spin" -- rotating each of the four magnets in a sequence, end for end.    

But, from my perspective, adding an abstract math description or set or expressions is extra, superfluous  and does not add physical intuition, which I understand is the reason for developing and using abstract math representations of physical systems.   Plus, as I've said, I am clueless and inept in abstract math. Similarly, with the unit doing damped anharmonic motion with a leg repulsed over a support magnet. The term "damped anharmonic motion" was explained to me by a physicist.  I think he mused that few of his students could write the equations.  I recognize that I cannot and I question why one would do it, except for the challenge.   So, I see it that a certain attitude or temperament does one thing while the abstract math calls for a person having different attitude and temperament.

But, is this physical intuition just available to cwb organisms like you and I and others due to the interactive tool use and symmetry of the specific tool patterns with universal cwb symmetries?  Or, can units of physical intuition and creativity  be created and delivered via  Turing machines and/or Turing emulations in a  straightforward way? 

Nobody can know, but that is part of the mechanist assumption. If daemon substitute your water based brain during the night for a silicon computer, by definition you would not be aware of the change.

[rf] Interesting.  The assumption is quite broad and quite speculative, huh?    My brief readings on people with hydrocephalus   living a ~normal life but with ~no or a very small brain, or only with a brain stem makes me wonder.  Perhaps "it" is all done in the structurally coded ordered water.  Would better, stepwise tests be to augment resonance and see boosts in behaviors? 

It seems to me like nesting would be involved to get/deliver units of  physical intuition in machines or organisms.  Do you have such classical logic symbols and statement  association patterns already developed for the traits of  physical intuition and creativity?

Yes. Universal machine are so creative that Emil Post named them “creative set” (before that notion was proved equivalent with the notion of universal machine). OK. It is just a wording, but it illustrate that creativity might be he mark of the universal machine.  For the physical, you need the nuance []p & <>t, like above, with p restricted to sigma_1. 

[rf] I need it, or you need it? 

If  not, does that sort of imply that once one goes through the proposed digital mechanism substitution a known  or potential side-effect, which should be listed on the side of the pill box or on the waiver agreement, is probable loss of  developing or  having/retaining physical intuition, creativity, and the ability to change paradigms?

Assuming that mechanism is false. You are right. But then non-mechanism does not see to answer this either, and most non-mechanist just invoke a primitive physical reality instead, which I find a quite premature move. It is never good to assume a god in scientific theology, like we do not assume the whole arithmetical reality in any arithmetical axiom.

[rf] I'm lost here with unclear understanding of  mechanism, and mechanism is false, and non-mechanist invoking primitive PR...

On another point, regarding a machine not being able to ~name itself or say what kind of machine it is, 

Tha machine is able to name or describe itself, but not in a provable or knowable way. (That was Penrose initial mistake). 

[rf] Similar to/same as with us.    Or are DNA's and fingerprints actually unique?  

I observe something similar in the 6^n structural coding and hydrogen-bonding influence-in-protein-folding-to-get-words, where 'a person' could be running on ~any value of n  (6^6, 6^12, 6^23) and still have ~functional  internal representations and expressions along with their peers -- but where the individual  is clueless on which specific 6^n s/he is running. The choice of n might affect vocabulary or cleverness, but, would not preclude some functionality.  Also, in the 6^n ordered water cwb mechanism, words get sounded out ~downstream, after initial structural coding in ordered water and so ~names are always coming from "outside", or in consensus with subsequent or prior generations. (Thus, our parents name us -- before our cumulative actions ~name or characterize us further.) Thus we have an ineffable feeling before we coin a new term, say, for the underlying general principle.  The machine that created the machine would likely be tasked with naming its creations.

Overall, Bruno, I think  central differences between our storylines are, you are assuming or testing something roughly like "reality is Arithmetical Realism”,

No. I test Digital Mechanism. AR is only part of it, and everyone believe in it (except some Sunday Philosophers). 

[rf] How is it that  you test digital mechanism?   Are you writing computer programs? And, if so, what do they accomplish or do?

whereas  I am saying/assuming "reality is nested structured~duality (NSD)”. 

That is not precise enough. We just cannot assume a “reality” (provably so in the mechanist theory, but it was known in the greek metaphysics). I mean, if you do science, you have to assume only simple principle, and not the answer already. I don’t know what is “reality”, nor “nested” which presuppose a space, a topology, perhaps a metric. 

[rf] That sounds to me like rules of a school of thought.   On one hand, you have consensus and thousands of years of activity in that tradition one your side so there is a lot of reasons to continue to color inside those lines. 

OTOH, here we are and based on those traditions and logics, groups  upgrade nuclear arsenal to  bully others and build a Wall.  Is that, too, a symptom of not understanding reality?

Imagine what we might do if we did have a shared, approximate and somewhat cooperative understanding of reality. What would life be like if it wasn't like it is?

 

From my perspective, in your Sub-hypothesis#3 you say that AR is true "independently" from "me, you, humanity, physical reality...", whereas, I view that NSD is the common denominator underlying what we presently consider as the "mental" and the "physical" realms.  

From my POV, I consider all of your YD+CT+AR and SANE04 expressions  are mental artifacts which you pose or consider as "true independently of" (I see it as separate from)  "me, you, humanity, physical reality" ... ~physical artifacts. 

I assume Mechanism. The idea that there is no magic playing some role in the brain/body (make “modern” through the discovery of the universal digital machine by Turing).

[rf] Do you mean "digital mechanism" and computationalism? Where the test is to replace respiring cell mass with a modified iPhone having  a large cable/electrode harness? And if the person son't fare well then mechanism is false and we all will have proof so we can perhaps give up on non understanding reality?

 I suspect, though, that you more see that there is only ~AR, sort of like on some days I see there is only NSD

AR is taught in primary school. NSD is not yet clear to me, despite my valiant effort to push you toward clarification.

[rf] Thinking differently is difficult, particularly after  a lot of conditioning and reinforcement.  Consider that NSD is the general principle "down under" ALL of the other storylines, I suppose, including the AR and Mechanism(s) (whatever it/they are). [~Actually, the general principle IS down under, but also pervades "up through" all the various levels of organization.]  Then, I suppose, whether mechanism is true or false, NSD still holds.  Also, if you are inclined to truck with one spiritual belief or another, or others, you are free to do so, keeping in line with ~golden rule.

and the ~mental and ~physical categories are only available to us or considered by us due to these being features of the paradigm we have already learned or acquired. 

FWIW, I sort of see your   AR "independently true of"  [you,me, humanity] as perhaps an excessive and unrealistic  or inappropriate dissociation, or perhaps like you are idolizing numbers/AR when ALL of its facets and features could be like extremely persistent, functional ~quales embedded within our cwb being.   I guess that is what you suggest or aim to test. 

If mechanism is refuted by nature, I will conclude that we are not machine (or that we are in a malevolent simulation, to be exact).

Honestly, that will not give us a reason to doubt AR, which is just the belief that 2+2=4. 

[rf] Notice that you plant one appleseed in good ground and you watch the tree grow for a few seasons and then one Fall, and thereafter for many years the tree produces bountiful crops. Your children carry ripened apples  to you, two in each hand. You ask how many apples did they bring as a way to help teach them math. One says, "One seed planted years ago plus the surroundings equals four ripe apples a day for you this season." Is she wrong?

When you place the guides and constraints, yes, 2+2=4 which is all she can carry easily in one trip. But notice you are the one adding constraints and limits and boundaries.  Or removing them.

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday.

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

 

I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

[rf]   Apparently, I point at AR when I mean mechanism, or the proposal to replace respiring cell mass with ~silicon.   I am skeptical, perhaps more than skeptical. It seems akin to cutting down rain forests for more of my McDoubles.  Maybe it is  a bit too hostile for some reason -- perhaps as a reaction to our collectively not understanding reality and continuing to foster the myth that continuing only in the prior way will this time lead to a different result. Digital substiution would likely fix that, one way or another.

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

[rf] So, which kind of system is the mechanist attempting to model or emulate??  Dimensional humans?? 

My approach may be quite an approximation, but the magnetic tetrahedron also does deliver physical intuition

It tooks me years of work to understand that I will never understand magnetism, nor gravitation, unless deriving the whole of physics from simpler. Einstein also understood that electromagnetism was a mysterious, and his attempt to clarify led him to special and general relativity. 

[rf] ...But you  were attempting it piecemeal, divided and carrying considerable detail.  The alternative, if you can tolerate beginning with an approximation,  is to do all at once.  

The tetrahedron is different, we have quickly a notion (the greeks got them) of tetrahedral numbers:

You have the triangular numbers: 1, 3, 6, 10, … (which are the initial sums of the natural numbers, i.e. 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, ...), and the tetrahedral numbers are given by the initial sums of the triangular numbers 1, 1+3, 1+3+6, 1+3+6+10, … = 1, 4, 10, 20,  … 

Thanks!! 

But magnetism is a while different story With mechanism we have not yet any notion of force, nor even of space or time. We have only the propositional quantum logic. It is still an open problem if the notion of force is physical with Mechanism, this is equivalent with(derivable from arithmetical self-reference) or geographical. It is not much, but the goal is in explaining quanta and qualia (here physics fails, and with mechanism: has to fail).

[rf]  Might it ~help to dial back on "magnetic field strength" approaching to zero?  States and the one-half spin might persist but ignore force (assume ~zero). Back in 1980's when I called the artifacts "Bipolar Polyhedral Structures" (BPS)   one day I ~realized that ALL polyhedra were bipolar polyhedral structures.  The various strutted structures that R Buckminster Fuller showed in his books, etc., were just ~zero magnetic field strength BPS units.   The ~bipolarity was present but negligible so their ~states were  real and illusory.

on much of our, and our surroundings'  ontology, as well as on variable mass density multiple states differing by increments of one-half spin -- out of the box.

...more below... some snipped away -- couple items of interest very neer the end…

OK. I stop here, and will look at the rest later. I snip this mail for being sure it go through. If you want me to comment the answer below, do not answer this present mail to quickly. I will answer your other comment when I have more time, as I have to go.

Just looking quickly, you still seem to put to much in AR. You do philosophy before doing the science, I would say. But I need to run …

Kind regards,

Bruno

[rf] Thanks. I'll mull that over. Initially, I disagree, claiming that starting out with point-line-plane-(cube) is inserting philosophy before beginning doing science -- or maybe that's like getting off on the wrong foot. Marching cadence is then always ~wrong.  Pardon me for saying it, but that initial error could also through the math off a bit, too. 

AFAIK, you can not reply to the other things in the prior post.

Thanks again for you patiences, assistance and advice. 

Best regards to all,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/3689F5E1-5902-434D-9C08-A0CA6511E675%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Ralph,

The post was long, so I will answer only this, as I would repeat myself too much. Don’t hesitate to come back on some point, but let us try shorter post. For the ease of everyone.

My gal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

On 1 Feb 2018, at 08:48, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:  [in part]

[rf] Notice that you plant one appleseed in good ground and you watch the tree grow for a few seasons and then one Fall, and thereafter for many years the tree produces bountiful crops. Your children carry ripened apples  to you, two in each hand. You ask how many apples did they bring as a way to help teach them math. One says, "One seed planted years ago plus the surroundings equals four ripe apples a day for you this season." Is she wrong?

If the children is young, I will say it is correct. Of course it is only partially correct. If the seed has some responsibility in making those apples happening, the surroundings is responsible also for the peers of yesterday, the ants in the kitchen, … so, well abstracting us from all those by-products, we can focus on the four apples, and I am glad you can count *them*.

Look, I will get a rabbit out of a hat. I will get the appaerence of the seeds and the apples, and the children and you and myself from 2+2 = 4.

Your lesson was in applied math, but I will apply pure math to extract the applicable world from the pure math. First “intuitively” with thought experiences made possible with the mechanist assumption, and then from the mathematics of machine or number self-reference.

Nothing will disappear. Everything will appear, and perhaps too much, in which case computationalism is refuted.

When you place the guides and constraints, yes, 2+2=4 which is all she can carry easily in one trip. But notice you are the one adding constraints and limits and boundaries.  Or removing them.

Good! Yes: removing them. For some kids, 2+2=4 is more easy, even more true, than 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. Because with objets like apple, you never know, they are impermanent, the little sister can eat one.

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

Mechanism exploits a fixed point between truth and its representation. It requires an act if faith. You can say “no” to the doctor.

Actually, it would be a blasphemy in the machine theology to assert that computationalism is true, or that the substitution level was correct.

 

I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

[rf]   Apparently, I point at AR when I mean mechanism, or the proposal to replace respiring cell mass with ~silicon.   I am skeptical, perhaps more than skeptical. It seems akin to cutting down rain forests for more of my McDoubles.  Maybe it is  a bit too hostile for some reason -- perhaps as a reaction to our collectively not understanding reality and continuing to foster the myth that continuing only in the prior way will this time lead to a different result. Digital substiution would likely fix that, one way or another.

The prior are not that bad. It is just that in theology we have chosen (or be enforced by terror) the theology of Aristotle, which take for granted what Plato just made us doubting (physicalism, say).

Then you seem unaware of Gödel and Turing. We must not confuse the 19th century automaton with the universal machine. That last one makes all effective theories about her incomplete and incompletable. I will try to explain this, but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism. On the contrary, it is a rational killer of all reductionism (of a certain type).

You might be the one asking tor fix the boundaries to the human, if you think about it. 

Now mechanism might be false, which encourages us to make the 3p test,  before the doctors change us into machine without asking us.

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

[rf] So, which kind of system is the mechanist attempting to model or emulate??  Dimensional humans?? 

You and me.

Best,

Bruno

[Ralph Frost]

Dear Bruno, 

Look for the math note at the end...

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

The post was long, so I will answer only this, as I would repeat myself too much. Don’t hesitate to come back on some point, but let us try shorter post. For the ease of everyone.

My gal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

[rf] Me, too.  Toward that end, can you please  define/describe Mechanism or the theology of the machine?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

Is it a 'proof' for ~panpsychism or for a dis-embodied individual 'consciousness'  including identity and ego, etc., and any associated multiple personalities an indiidual may have?

Also, what is the special ability or property of a Turing emulation or universal Turing machine (relative to other devices) as far as emulating, or is it, creating physical reality? 

On 1 Feb 2018, at 08:48, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:  [in part]

...

 

Look, I will get a rabbit out of a hat. I will get the appaerence of the seeds and the apples, and the children and you and myself from 2+2 = 4.

[rf] Do you mean, physically functioning ~copies? Or are you talking about generating descriptions or generating, like a virtual reality program? 

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Swapping out functioning, respiring neural networking mass for silicon or germanium programmed/able devices with wiring harnesses, though, seems a bit too crude and uninformed, and premature, IMO.  Might you try it with a c.elegans first, or mice?

Your lesson was in applied math, but I will apply pure math to extract the applicable world from the pure math. First “intuitively” with thought experiences made possible with the mechanist assumption, and then from the mathematics of machine or number self-reference.

Nothing will disappear. Everything will appear, and perhaps too much, in which case computationalism is refuted.

[rf] Does that mean you run your program and if also get angry, hungry, Morlocks as well the nice stuff and then you say, "Oops!"?      What is the full signal  for computationalism being confirmed?

...

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

Mechanism exploits a fixed point between truth and its representation. It requires an act if faith. You can say “no” to the doctor.

Actually, it would be a blasphemy in the machine theology to assert that computationalism is true, or that the substitution level was correct.

[rf] I do not understand what you mean in these sentences. 

I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

[rf]   Apparently, I point at AR when I mean mechanism, or the proposal to replace respiring cell mass with ~silicon.   I am skeptical, perhaps more than skeptical. It seems akin to cutting down rain forests for more of my McDoubles.  Maybe it is  a bit too hostile for some reason -- perhaps as a reaction to our collectively not understanding reality and continuing to foster the myth that continuing only in the prior way will this time lead to a different result. Digital substiution would likely fix that, one way or another.

The prior are not that bad. It is just that in theology we have chosen (or be enforced by terror) the theology of Aristotle, which take for granted what Plato just made us doubting (physicalism, say).

[rf] Why not just change the scientific paradigm, then, and migrate away from the error/terror of the western/Aristotelian  (Cartesian cube/subjective-objective worldview?  Shift over to nested structured~duality   and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion?

Particularly if you are feeling like we already are deficient role models for our robots.

Then you seem unaware of Gödel and Turing. We must not confuse the 19th century automaton with the universal machine. That last one makes all effective theories about her incomplete and incompletable. I will try to explain this, but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism. On the contrary, it is a rational killer of all reductionism (of a certain type).

[rf] I've heard of Godel and incompleteness. I'm functionally illiterate about Turing universal machines  and/or what blessing they can bestow on humans.  I do not understand what you mean by "but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism".

You might be the one asking tor fix the boundaries to the human, if you think about it. 

[rf]  Yeah, I might be conservative that way, but it's more like I think it is way too early to just whine and give up, particularly  when there are other options to explore.   I keep seeing that here in the modern era we have just been doing 400 years of hard time exploring just the Cartesian cube/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality.   We see secondary and tertiary and quaternary  consequences -- the so-called "unintended" consequences -- pile up and we don't seem to be at all aware that that has everything to do with the scientific paradigm we are running.  And, that is ALL 100% up to us to choose and shift around and explore other avenues.    You want more Plato?  Shift to a second platonic solid and different number base.  Explore what is down that path.

Now mechanism might be false, which encourages us to make the 3p test,  before the doctors change us into machine without asking us.

[rf] Run it.    But if your estimate of billions of years before your test path produces its initial report,  why not admit defeat on that option?  

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

[rf] So, which kind of system is the mechanist attempting to model or emulate??  Dimensional humans?? 

You and me.

Best,

Bruno

[rf] So, I am hearing you say you propose running a dimensionless ~model or emulating device to scribble out or emulate a mostly tetrahedrally dimensional organism.  Is that difficult?  It seems difficult if not impossible.  It seems more logical (to me, take it as a grain of salt)  to rig up your framework to try to be symmetric on some levels with the thing you are attempting to model/emulate. 

Hey,  another thing, I queries for "find primes in other number bases" or something like that and found: 

 """[–]oakenguitar3 1 point 2 years ago 

Base 6 is the best for representing the prime numbers in my opinion!!! Senary may be considered useful in the study of prime numbers since all primes other than 2 and 3, when expressed in senary, have 1 or 5 as the final digit. In senary the prime numbers are written 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 35, 45, 51, 101, 105, 111, 115, 125, 135, 141, 151, 155, 201, 211, ... This doesn't mean every number that has 1 or 5 as the last digit is a prime number but its a good thing to keep in mind. ]"""  on reddit.com

But you already knew that, right?

Best regards,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/9AEAF666-F528-4B51-9228-FC9A1850701F%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Ralph,

On 3 Feb 2018, at 08:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

Look for the math note at the end...

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

The post was long, so I will answer only this, as I would repeat myself too much. Don’t hesitate to come back on some point, but let us try shorter post. For the ease of everyone.

My gal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

[rf] Me, too.  Toward that end, can you please  define/describe Mechanism or the theology of the machine?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

With either thought experience, based on a passive understanding of how a computer work, or with the mathematical definition, I can explain that if we assume mechanism then the physical appearance can no more be explained by the assumption of a physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe must be explained by a statistics related to the set of all computations, or more exactly, from a relative statistic.

The observable with measure one, with that statistic, will give the core logical structure obeyed by the physical appearances. That one can be derived mathematically, and has been derived mathematically, so we can compare it to the empirical observable, and it fits well. 

The theology of the machine is the mathematical study of what consistent (or sound) machine can prove about themselves, and this in all the intensional (modal) variants of provability imposed by the incompleteness theorem.

We get 5 main “points of view”

p (truth, 0-person point of view)

[]p (provable, believable, 3-person (point of )view)

[]p & p (knowable, 1-person view)

[]p & <>t  (observable, 1-person-plural views)

[]p & <>t & p (sensible, 1-person view).

But those five leads really to 8 mathematical theories, as three of them split along the truth/proof distinction.

The physics is given by the logic of []p & p, and/or []p & <>p, and/or []p & <>t & p, when p interpretation is restricted to the semi-computable sentences/formula. They give the domain of the first person indeterminacy (it is the way to translate computationalism in arithmetic, due to well known relationship between sigma_1-sentences,computability and provability).

Is it a 'proof' for ~panpsychism

On the contrary, the free-mind or the CC is not attached to any thing, but it is realised infinitely often in arithmetic, through some simple, yet non completely trivial, universal number relations.

or for a dis-embodied individual 'consciousness'  including identity and ego, etc., and any associated multiple personalities an indiidual may have?

Yes, that one.

Also, what is the special ability or property of a Turing emulation or universal Turing machine (relative to other devices) as far as emulating, or is it, creating physical reality? 

It is more like dream and dream sharing. But some dreams can be very long and deep (in the technical sense of Bennett: it means roughly that to get your consciousness state, a very long history has to occur. But that does not mean that you are not duplicable, nor that you couldn’t survive with that deepness obliterated. Eventually, you are the one defining who you are.

You need to understand that the notion of computation is purely arithmetical. We can define it using only 0, +, *, s, and the 7 axioms given.

If you are OK with the triangular and tetrahedral numbers in elementary arithmetic, and if you are rational enough, then you should be OK with the computations in Arithmetic. 

Look, I am creating a blog where I will try to provide some shortcut to the main thing. 

On 1 Feb 2018, at 08:48, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:  [in part]

...

 

Look, I will get a rabbit out of a hat. I will get the appaerence of the seeds and the apples, and the children and you and myself from 2+2 = 4.

[rf] Do you mean, physically functioning ~copies? Or are you talking about generating descriptions or generating, like a virtual reality program? 

I meant each of that at different step of the reasoning. From step 1 to 6, I assume the digital mechanist hypothesis, which is that I survive with a digital, yet still physical brain. Step 7 and 8 explains why this lead to a transformation of the mind-body problem into the problem of deriving physics from machine arithmetical self-reference.

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Yes, that is the idea. Now, what would you predict if you are reconstituted physically in two places?

That is the next question. It can be shocking, but with the digital mechanist assumption we are duplicable (even if our level is sub-quantum, that does not violate the non-cloning theorem, actually that will entail it, later …).

Swapping out functioning, respiring neural networking mass for silicon or germanium programmed/able devices with wiring harnesses, though, seems a bit too crude and uninformed, and premature, IMO.  Might you try it with a c.elegans first, or mice?

Different company try to build an artificial rat hippocampus. Drosophila brain and the Planaria one, are known at some very fine details. 

Some humans have already prosthetic part in the brain.

People will say “yes” to the doctor, not for doing metaphysics, nor even to be immortal, but to see the next Soccer Cup, or to see they grandchildren growing ...

Your lesson was in applied math, but I will apply pure math to extract the applicable world from the pure math. First “intuitively” with thought experiences made possible with the mechanist assumption, and then from the mathematics of machine or number self-reference.

Nothing will disappear. Everything will appear, and perhaps too much, in which case computationalism is refuted.

[rf] Does that mean you run your program and if also get angry, hungry, Morlocks as well the nice stuff and then you say, "Oops!"?      What is the full signal  for computationalism being confirmed?

There are none. Never. Even the personal feeling of having survived with the brain transplant is not a proof, even for you, due to anosognosia (mental problem with lost the ability to see the problem, like blind people up to amnesia of sight).

Any doctor or company telling computationalism is proved, or “fully confirmed” is a liar. No machine can ever know which machine she is. That would be like claiming she knows that []p is her []p & p, which would make her unsound and even inconsistent.

But we can compare the physics in the head of the universal number (the stat on computation seen by the right point of view), and the physics that we observe. If it depart significantly, we get evidence that computationalism might be false.

...

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

Compare the logic of []p & <>t, with p sigma_1, and the quantum logic(s). Up to now, it matches, and it explains both qualia and quanta, without adding any magic neither in matter, nor in mind, nor in god(s).

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

Mechanism exploits a fixed point between truth and its representation. It requires an act if faith. You can say “no” to the doctor.

Actually, it would be a blasphemy in the machine theology to assert that computationalism is true, or that the substitution level was correct.

[rf] I do not understand what you mean in these sentences. 

No machine can know that computationalism is true, unless she succeed in cutting all cycles of life and death, perhaps. 

I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

[rf]   Apparently, I point at AR when I mean mechanism, or the proposal to replace respiring cell mass with ~silicon.   I am skeptical, perhaps more than skeptical. It seems akin to cutting down rain forests for more of my McDoubles.  Maybe it is  a bit too hostile for some reason -- perhaps as a reaction to our collectively not understanding reality and continuing to foster the myth that continuing only in the prior way will this time lead to a different result. Digital substiution would likely fix that, one way or another.

The prior are not that bad. It is just that in theology we have chosen (or be enforced by terror) the theology of Aristotle, which take for granted what Plato just made us doubting (physicalism, say).

[rf] Why not just change the scientific paradigm, then, and migrate away from the error/terror of the western/Aristotelian  (Cartesian cube/subjective-objective worldview? 

But that is what the mechanist hypothesis enforced. Going back from Aristotle to Plato, and even Pythagorus.

Shift over to nested structured~duality   and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion?

Advertising will not help you. Either tour nested structured~duality and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion are primitive notions, and you should tell their laws, or you derived them from something else, and you have to clear on what. 

Particularly if you are feeling like we already are deficient role models for our robots.

Then you seem unaware of Gödel and Turing. We must not confuse the 19th century automaton with the universal machine. That last one makes all effective theories about her incomplete and incompletable. I will try to explain this, but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism. On the contrary, it is a rational killer of all reductionism (of a certain type).

[rf] I've heard of Godel and incompleteness. I'm functionally illiterate about Turing universal machines  and/or what blessing they can bestow on humans.  I do not understand what you mean by "but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism”.

If you find a complete theory about a universal machine, and give it to that machine, the machine will refute it. If you try to control it too much, it becomes uncontrollable.

There just no complete theory of the universal machine. The incompleteness theorem is universal for all theories rich enough to define what is a universal machine.

And the “rich” machine knows that, already. It is just that we are at the very beginning of the story, and today, you still need to do some mathematics to listen to the machine.

You might be the one asking tor fix the boundaries to the human, if you think about it. 

[rf]  Yeah, I might be conservative that way, but it's more like I think it is way too early to just whine and give up, particularly  when there are other options to explore. 

Absolutely. I do not defend Mechanism at all. Just explain the consequences, and also, the incredible theology of the machine, (which is of course not dependent of mechanism).

But I can be hard with person who claim negative fact on machine, because they just confuse the 20th machine with the 19th conception of it.

Leibniz thought that his universal language would be complete, and david Hilbert too. The shock of the 20th century, is that very small and apparently simple machine can have utterly complex behaviour, and more than behaviour ...

 I keep seeing that here in the modern era we have just been doing 400 years of hard time exploring just the Cartesian cube/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality.   We see secondary and tertiary and quaternary  consequences -- the so-called "unintended" consequences -- pile up and we don't seem to be at all aware that that has everything to do with the scientific paradigm we are running.  And, that is ALL 100% up to us to choose and shift around and explore other avenues. 

Frankly, you should elaborate on this. I still don’t know what you are talking about. What do you assume to make sense of your terms. Hunch are good, bit you need to be precise enough. 

  You want more Plato?  Shift to a second platonic solid and different number base.  Explore what is down that path.

The theology of the machine, and its physics, is provably formalism independent. The base of the numbers, the type of the numbers.

Do a piece of the exploration that you suggest, and present it is a way that everybody can understand, or understand that it could understand it, ...

If you have a nice bike, stop advertising it. Use it to bring something. That will clarify people’s mind and help to make sense of what you argue for.

Now mechanism might be false, which encourages us to make the 3p test,  before the doctors change us into machine without asking us.

[rf] Run it.    But if your estimate of billions of years before your test path produces its initial report,  why not admit defeat on that option?  

That defeat would be necessary. Deep computations cannot be shortened. Of course, it is not a defeat, or the human are a defeat.  It could need billions years to make a human, and two minutes to copy it. Nature uses 9 month. 

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

[rf] So, which kind of system is the mechanist attempting to model or emulate??  Dimensional humans?? 

You and me.

Best,

Bruno

[rf] So, I am hearing you say you propose running a dimensionless ~model or emulating device to scribble out or emulate a mostly tetrahedrally dimensional organism.  Is that difficult?  It seems difficult if not impossible. 

If Mechanism is true, it is done, out of time and space, in infinitely many versions, already, in arithmetic.

If Mechanism is false, tell me precisely what you think to be not Turing emulable in the "tetrahedral dimensional organism”.

It seems more logical (to me, take it as a grain of salt)  to rig up your framework to try to be symmetric on some levels with the thing you are attempting to model/emulate. 

There is no choice in the matter. If the physics extracted from self-reference is not symmetrical enough, we might need to abandon Mechanism,  The interest lies there. Actually, we do recover the symmetries. (Even miraculously: as the first person we start with can be shown highly antisymmetrical).

Hey,  another thing, I queries for "find primes in other number bases" or something like that and found: 

 """[–]oakenguitar3 1 point 2 years ago 

Base 6 is the best for representing the prime numbers in my opinion!!! Senary may be considered useful in the study of prime numbers since all primes other than 2 and 3, when expressed in senary, have 1 or 5 as the final digit. In senary the prime numbers are written 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 35, 45, 51, 101, 105, 111, 115, 125, 135, 141, 151, 155, 201, 211, ... This doesn't mean every number that has 1 or 5 as the last digit is a prime number but its a good thing to keep in mind. ]"""  on reddit.com

But you already knew that, right?

The behaviour of the primes last digits lead to many open problems, some dating from Tchebycheff. And this in all bases …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVvfY_lFUZ8

Best,

Bruno

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcWE4mrNqm0RDPDRFYQwB2MrxvSHW_7i74mNFKgDEhmAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Thanks, Bruno...

[rf] Does your statement here ~mean (approximately) that your approach to solving the mind-body problem is to ~assume mind is ~arithmetic or pure mathematics and then sort of logically back-calculate 'physics' and 'laws of physics' (developed via empiricism and conveyed to you by carbon-water-based ancestors by word of mouth..) leading to pointing to an infinity of calcs and computations, and since your starting assumption shifts the overall balance all the way over  into the 'mind' and thereby abstracting the 'body' completely away,  that, in order to ~solve or get closure on the alleged mind-body problem, in your approach the theorized and perhaps idealized  'digital mechanism substitution'  comes forward as "the required test or proof"? Is that the storyline?

If so, I sort of track on your instance of ~pure math/logic rationality-only nested structured~duality. You are sort of choosing sides. Taking an extreme. Going with your strength.  From my perspective, in some ~shamanistic-like method, I bore down through mind-body and mental-physical ...  mathematical physics-empiricism ... etc.,  and arrive at the underlying nested structured~duality common denominator, which  I approximate in some analog math and then point around at some very highly replicated common relational patterns.  The "test" of  my approach, basically, is to change scientific paradigms - to change over to a tetrahedral-first, rather than cube-first  educational step and/or then just pay attention to what develops.

If I am tracking on what  you are saying, you are still talking about  people or machines still replicating, say, ~silicon semi-conductor physical devices, so you mostly  are proposing hardware swaps which, IMO,  still validate/perpetuate the existence of the 'body'/physical reality as a definite part of the gameboard, and thus  is ~just a translation or obfuscation, rather than an actual  solution to the 'mind-body problem'.  (I say 'just', but  you're talking about using math/logic to create different types of vibrational systems which likely will have many good uses. I just don't see how translating or replicating it in other hardware "solves" the mind-body problem.)

My impression, or intuition, on this storyline is there may be some latent anger or hostility embedded in  toward  the carbon-water-based systems.  Life is hard.

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Yes, that is the idea. Now, what would you predict if you are reconstituted physically in two places?

That is the next question. It can be shocking, but with the digital mechanist assumption we are duplicable (even if our level is sub-quantum, that does not violate the non-cloning theorem, actually that will entail it, later …).

[rf]  Predict?  My overall impression here sometimes is that you are trying to come up with a logic/math rationalization, perhaps for astral travel/oobe/~paranormal experiences you personally  have already had, imagined, or read about. And, perhaps you are less comfortable admitting, "Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand. There are many features in this human life and existence that are incomprehensible and can only be approximated or survived through faith."  If or when people develop teleportation systems, then, I suspect people can experience what it is like for them.  If it's a "Cloner" they may or may not "know".

Swapping out functioning, respiring neural networking mass for silicon or germanium programmed/able devices with wiring harnesses, though, seems a bit too crude and uninformed, and premature, IMO.  Might you try it with a c.elegans first, or mice?

Different company try to build an artificial rat hippocampus. Drosophila brain and the Planaria one, are known at some very fine details. 

Some humans have already prosthetic part in the brain.

[rf] Yes, those are interesting, helpful developments.  Yet, these are analog, hardware vibratory swaps.  How does any of that "solve" the mind-body problem?   

People will say “yes” to the doctor, not for doing metaphysics, nor even to be immortal, but to see the next Soccer Cup, or to see they grandchildren growing ...

Your lesson was in applied math, but I will apply pure math to extract the applicable world from the pure math. First “intuitively” with thought experiences made possible with the mechanist assumption, and then from the mathematics of machine or number self-reference.

[rf] And when you (or is it a bank of Turing devices computing for several x-illion years) are done, then do you just scan me an then I can continue on with full vision in both eyes restored an, as in Christian faith, raised up with a "new body", albeit unaware of the pure math resurrection?

Nothing will disappear. Everything will appear, and perhaps too much, in which case computationalism is refuted.

[rf] Does that mean you run your program and if also get angry, hungry, Morlocks as well the nice stuff and then you say, "Oops!"?      What is the full signal  for computationalism being confirmed?

There are none. Never. Even the personal feeling of having survived with the brain transplant is not a proof, even for you, due to anosognosia (mental problem with lost the ability to see the problem, like blind people up to amnesia of sight).

[rf] Pardon me. What are the full signals, characteristics, attributes and outcomes associated with computationalism being refuted? 

Also, thank you, I guess,  for the free anosognosia diagnosis.   

Any doctor or company telling computationalism is proved, or “fully confirmed” is a liar. No machine can ever know which machine she is. That would be like claiming she knows that []p is her []p & p, which would make her unsound and even inconsistent.

But we can compare the physics in the head of the universal number (the stat on computation seen by the right point of view), and the physics that we observe. If it depart significantly, we get evidence that computationalism might be false.

[rf] So comparison on one calculated result with another is the proposed replacement for empirical tests?    It seems to me like you stack the deck in your favor, starting out with a handful of math-logic tenets and  then seeming to allow that these same initial conditions will spilt and diverge?

..

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

Compare the logic of []p & <>t, with p sigma_1, and the quantum logic(s). Up to now, it matches, and it explains both qualia and quanta, without adding any magic neither in matter, nor in mind, nor in god(s).

[rf]  I think you mean "neither in matter nor in math".   Other add-ons and associations are of your own making. 

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

Mechanism exploits a fixed point between truth and its representation. It requires an act if faith. You can say “no” to the doctor.

Actually, it would be a blasphemy in the machine theology to assert that computationalism is true, or that the substitution level was correct.

[rf] I do not understand what you mean in these sentences. 

No machine can know that computationalism is true, unless she succeed in cutting all cycles of life and death, perhaps. 

[rf] ....So?  Or therefore...?  Is such a storyline supposed to be a comfort or palliative against, say, the human fear or death, or turns on the wheels of karma, or whatever?  There is a lot people don't know. This sort of the fun of life, in the mystery and the possibilities, even in the carbon-water-based life.   Are you having difficulty accepting that?

I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

[rf]   Apparently, I point at AR when I mean mechanism, or the proposal to replace respiring cell mass with ~silicon.   I am skeptical, perhaps more than skeptical. It seems akin to cutting down rain forests for more of my McDoubles.  Maybe it is  a bit too hostile for some reason -- perhaps as a reaction to our collectively not understanding reality and continuing to foster the myth that continuing only in the prior way will this time lead to a different result. Digital substiution would likely fix that, one way or another.

The prior are not that bad. It is just that in theology we have chosen (or be enforced by terror) the theology of Aristotle, which take for granted what Plato just made us doubting (physicalism, say).

[rf] Why not just change the scientific paradigm, then, and migrate away from the error/terror of the western/Aristotelian  (Cartesian cube/subjective-objective worldview? 

But that is what the mechanist hypothesis enforced. Going back from Aristotle to Plato, and even Pythagorus.

[rf]  Are you taking, say, these three  approximations cast in different instances of nested structured~duality  as ~truth?  Or one of them, or your preferred ~pure math-logic instance or whatever you mean by "mechanistic hypothesis" as "truth"? 

The storyline I am advocating is, okay, we've explored the cube/subjective-objective instance and its epicycles  for ~400 years; now shift over to starting with tetrahedron first before introducing cube and its associated abstractions.   Explore that for a few hundred years and then write a summary report based on   the   two data points rather than just the one.  Or rather, people may discover they need to run a few other instances as well. 

I mean, if your routine is going to calculate for a few billion years through  the infinity of calculations, why not set it in motion and just let it run?

Shift over to nested structured~duality   and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion?

Advertising will not help you. Either tour nested structured~duality and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion are primitive notions, and you should tell their laws, or you derived them from something else, and you have to clear on what. 

[rf] 'Advertising' hasn't actually hurt.  NSD's concise terseness and generality propagates fairly well, usually in a page or two, or less.   Nested structured~duality and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion are primitive notions,  likeTao/yin-yang, and perhaps akin to or along a similar line with Michael Faraday's notions.  I suppose I could have derived them from a self-portrait, but it's also been an quest to "understand reality". So,perhaps I  make a lucky guess and think up -- make up the correct enough terms to fit in and fill the open holes.

Your  approach apparently, only works according to your different rules.  

Particularly if you are feeling like we already are deficient role models for our robots.

Then you seem unaware of Gödel and Turing. We must not confuse the 19th century automaton with the universal machine. That last one makes all effective theories about her incomplete and incompletable. I will try to explain this, but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism. On the contrary, it is a rational killer of all reductionism (of a certain type).

[rf] I've heard of Godel and incompleteness. I'm functionally illiterate about Turing universal machines  and/or what blessing they can bestow on humans.  I do not understand what you mean by "but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism”.

If you find a complete theory about a universal machine, and give it to that machine, the machine will refute it. If you try to control it too much, it becomes uncontrollable.

There just no complete theory of the universal machine. The incompleteness theorem is universal for all theories rich enough to define what is a universal machine.

And the “rich” machine knows that, already. It is just that we are at the very beginning of the story, and today, you still need to do some mathematics to listen to the machine.

[rf] Abstract math, or analog math? 

You might be the one asking tor fix the boundaries to the human, if you think about it. 

[rf]  Yeah, I might be conservative that way, but it's more like I think it is way too early to just whine and give up, particularly  when there are other options to explore. 

Absolutely. I do not defend Mechanism at all. Just explain the consequences, and also, the incredible theology of the machine, (which is of course not dependent of mechanism).

But I can be hard with person who claim negative fact on machine, because they just confuse the 20th machine with the 19th conception of it.

Leibniz thought that his universal language would be complete, and david Hilbert too. The shock of the 20th century, is that very small and apparently simple machine can have utterly complex behaviour, and more than behaviour ...

[rf] What might be called evidence of nested structured~duality...   

 I keep seeing that here in the modern era we have just been doing 400 years of hard time exploring just the Cartesian cube/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality.   We see secondary and tertiary and quaternary  consequences -- the so-called "unintended" consequences -- pile up and we don't seem to be at all aware that that has everything to do with the scientific paradigm we are running.  And, that is ALL 100% up to us to choose and shift around and explore other avenues. 

Frankly, you should elaborate on this. I still don’t know what you are talking about. What do you assume to make sense of your terms. Hunch are good, bit you need to be precise enough. 

[rf] My assumption is that social and economic and political systems are riding along on the tenets of the scientific paradigm.  Small or big flaws in the scientific paradigm drive  "unintended consequences" mostly relational or,as I think John Kineman might say, contextual or ecological. People might have a tendency to say, "Well, it's those darned Protestants, or Buddhists or others",    but the difficulty is really in the flawed tenets of the dominant scientific paradigm.  Change the scientific paradigm and things will change.   Shift to tetrahedron-first  in the educational sequence.

  You want more Plato?  Shift to a second platonic solid and different number base.  Explore what is down that path.

The theology of the machine, and its physics, is provably formalism independent. The base of the numbers, the type of the numbers.

[rf] That is likely  an illusion within nested structured~duality or your instance of NSD. Maybe that seems true within your idealized simplified, non-nested  machines,  but thatis obviously not the case in carbon-water-based sp^3 hybridized analog math devices such as you and I and everyone else and other species living within the carbon-, water-, nitrogen-, phosphorus-, etc., cycles here on Earth. 

Do a piece of the exploration that you suggest, and present it is a way that everybody can understand, or understand that it could understand it, ...

If you have a nice bike, stop advertising it. Use it to bring something. That will clarify people’s mind and help to make sense of what you argue for.

[rf] Overcoming scientific paradigmatic anosognosia which is on a global scale is not something to rush willy-nilly into. Paradigm change  is difficult and does takes some time for people to acclimate.  Things seem to be progressing fairly well.

Now mechanism might be false, which encourages us to make the 3p test,  before the doctors change us into machine without asking us.

[rf] Run it.    But if your estimate of billions of years before your test path produces its initial report,  why not admit defeat on that option?  

That defeat would be necessary. Deep computations cannot be shortened. Of course, it is not a defeat, or the human are a defeat.  It could need billions years to make a human, and two minutes to copy it. Nature uses 9 month. 

[rf] Dial back to the start of sexual reproduction. Add in the carbon-...cycles,,,,  Add none months.  

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

[rf] So, which kind of system is the mechanist attempting to model or emulate??  Dimensional humans?? 

You and me.

Best,

Bruno

[rf] So, I am hearing you say you propose running a dimensionless ~model or emulating device to scribble out or emulate a mostly tetrahedrally dimensional organism.  Is that difficult?  It seems difficult if not impossible. 

If Mechanism is true, it is done, out of time and space, in infinitely many versions, already, in arithmetic.

If Mechanism is false, tell me precisely what you think to be not Turing emulable in the "tetrahedral dimensional organism”.

[rf] Whether I can or can't, my slant is, that point is not the point.  I take more of an observational POV.  The carbon-water-based system is doing its nested structural coding in the tetrahedral motif. That seems like that is news to you and something you immediately say, "irrelevant", while, in fact, you continue to munch your Cheerios or Wheaties and respire so you can say, "Irrelevant".   Think about it.  

It seems more logical (to me, take it as a grain of salt)  to rig up your framework to try to be symmetric on some levels with the thing you are attempting to model/emulate. 

There is no choice in the matter. If the physics extracted from self-reference is not symmetrical enough, we might need to abandon Mechanism,  The interest lies there. Actually, we do recover the symmetries. (Even miraculously: as the first person we start with can be shown highly antisymmetrical).

Hey,  another thing, I queries for "find primes in other number bases" or something like that and found: 

 """[–]oakenguitar3 1 point 2 years ago 

Base 6 is the best for representing the prime numbers in my opinion!!! Senary may be considered useful in the study of prime numbers since all primes other than 2 and 3, when expressed in senary, have 1 or 5 as the final digit. In senary the prime numbers are written 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 35, 45, 51, 101, 105, 111, 115, 125, 135, 141, 151, 155, 201, 211, ... This doesn't mean every number that has 1 or 5 as the last digit is a prime number but its a good thing to keep in mind. ]"""  on reddit.com

But you already knew that, right?

The behaviour of the primes last digits lead to many open problems, some dating from Tchebycheff. And this in all bases …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVvfY_lFUZ8

Best,

Bruno

 

Thank you.. I'll take a look.  I was sort of curious if 'vibrating tetrahedra might do senary'.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcWE4mrNqm0RDPDRFYQwB2MrxvSHW_7i74mNFKgDEhmAw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79q7bVIGCnA/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CC8BE622-48D1-4CEE-81C5-8B535A28B1B1%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 6 Feb 2018, at 16:53, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Bruno…

Thanks for your patience Ralph...

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 3 Feb 2018, at 08:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

Look for the math note at the end...

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

The post was long, so I will answer only this, as I would repeat myself too much. Don’t hesitate to come back on some point, but let us try shorter post. For the ease of everyone.

My gal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

[rf] Me, too.  Toward that end, can you please  define/describe Mechanism or the theology of the machine?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

With either thought experience, based on a passive understanding of how a computer work, or with the mathematical definition, I can explain that if we assume mechanism then the physical appearance can no more be explained by the assumption of a physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe must be explained by a statistics related to the set of all computations, or more exactly, from a relative statistic.

The observable with measure one, with that statistic, will give the core logical structure obeyed by the physical appearances. That one can be derived mathematically, and has been derived mathematically, so we can compare it to the empirical observable, and it fits well. 

The theology of the machine is the mathematical study of what consistent (or sound) machine can prove about themselves, and this in all the intensional (modal) variants of provability imposed by the incompleteness theorem.

We get 5 main “points of view”

p (truth, 0-person point of view)

[]p (provable, believable, 3-person (point of )view)

[]p & p (knowable, 1-person view)

[]p & <>t  (observable, 1-person-plural views)

[]p & <>t & p (sensible, 1-person view).

I will have to insist that here p is a number which represenst an arithmetical proposition (eventually just the semi-computable one), and “[]” represents Gödel’s beweisbar (formally provable) arithmetical predicate. The precise definition of arithmetic is given in 46 arithmetical propositions. Martin Davis made this with Kleene’s predicate T(z, x, y) which says that y is the (halting) computation made by the machine z on input x. Provability and computability are represented faithfully in arithmetical relation. Then such machine can deduce (and infer) all the person perspective described above, and study their non trivial mathematics. Physics must be given with p restricted to the semi-computable predicates from the 1p and 1pp (1 person plural) related to []p & p, []p & <>t , []p & <>t & p. It works in the sense that we get quantum logics by reversing the modal analysis of quantum logic (with has []p -> p, and p -> []<>p has main axioms, and it allows to put a topology and metrics on the computations accessible from the machine, all this realised in the arithmetical reality, actually in *all* models of the arithmetical reality, that is all structure which verifies the axiom I gave to you some weeks ago).

But those five leads really to 8 mathematical theories, as three of them split along the truth/proof distinction.

The physics is given by the logic of []p & p, and/or []p & <>p, and/or []p & <>t & p, when p interpretation is restricted to the semi-computable sentences/formula. They give the domain of the first person indeterminacy (it is the way to translate computationalism in arithmetic, due to well known relationship between sigma_1-sentences,computability and provability).

Is it a 'proof' for ~panpsychism

On the contrary, the free-mind or the CC is not attached to any thing, but it is realised infinitely often in arithmetic, through some simple, yet non completely trivial, universal number relations.

or for a dis-embodied individual 'consciousness'  including identity and ego, etc., and any associated multiple personalities an indiidual may have?

Yes, that one.

Also, what is the special ability or property of a Turing emulation or universal Turing machine (relative to other devices) as far as emulating, or is it, creating physical reality? 

It is more like dream and dream sharing. But some dreams can be very long and deep (in the technical sense of Bennett: it means roughly that to get your consciousness state, a very long history has to occur. But that does not mean that you are not duplicable, nor that you couldn’t survive with that deepness obliterated. Eventually, you are the one defining who you are.

You need to understand that the notion of computation is purely arithmetical. We can define it using only 0, +, *, s, and the 7 axioms given.

If you are OK with the triangular and tetrahedral numbers in elementary arithmetic, and if you are rational enough, then you should be OK with the computations in Arithmetic. 

Look, I am creating a blog where I will try to provide some shortcut to the main thing. 

On 1 Feb 2018, at 08:48, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:  [in part]

...

 

Look, I will get a rabbit out of a hat. I will get the appaerence of the seeds and the apples, and the children and you and myself from 2+2 = 4.

[rf] Do you mean, physically functioning ~copies? Or are you talking about generating descriptions or generating, like a virtual reality program? 

I meant each of that at different step of the reasoning. From step 1 to 6, I assume the digital mechanist hypothesis, which is that I survive with a digital, yet still physical brain. Step 7 and 8 explains why this lead to a transformation of the mind-body problem into the problem of deriving physics from machine arithmetical self-reference.

[rf] Does your statement here ~mean (approximately) that your approach to solving the mind-body problem is to ~assume mind is ~arithmetic or pure mathematics and then sort of logically back-calculate 'physics' and 'laws of physics' (developed via empiricism and conveyed to you by carbon-water-based ancestors by word of mouth..) leading to pointing to an infinity of calcs and computations, and since your starting assumption shifts the overall balance all the way over  into the 'mind' and thereby abstracting the 'body' completely away,  that, in order to ~solve or get closure on the alleged mind-body problem, in your approach the theorized and perhaps idealized  'digital mechanism substitution'  comes forward as "the required test or proof"? Is that the storyline?

You get right the pieces of the puzzle, but put them in the wrong order. My assumption is that the brain is Turing emulable, in the sense, that if a doctor does it at the hospital, with your knowledge and consent, or without knowledge and consent, you would survive this in the usual sense: you would not see the difference, except from possible 3p clues, like some bandage on the head.

It is the idea that the physical body has no a so special organ that a numerical machine cannot emulate at some (perhaps low) level.

It is a natural hypothesis, because we don’t know any phenomena in Nature which is not Turing emulable. Quantum computer are Turing emulable for example. The only exception would be the wave reduction in case it would be thought as a *physical phenomena*, but this would be magic to me. (The “bad” magic, that is the one to stop investigation and prevent reason (and eventually hide facts).

So my hypothesis is very weak, and virtually believed by all scientists, which makes them sanely sceptic with the result: which is that the notion of primary physical reality stop making sense, and indeed the ultimate realty becomes the (sigma_1, semi-computable) arithmetical reality, and the physical and psychological realties emerges from that. It makes also this weak form of Mechanism testable, and that to QM, we get confirmation.

If so, I sort of track on your instance of ~pure math/logic rationality-only

Be careful. The point is that the arithmetical reality is NOT fully rational, from the points of view of the machine (in arithmetic). That is why they develop a theology. The five hypostases above split in eight, along the proof/truth distinction coming from incompleteness:

                                       True

                        Provable (G1)   Provable (G1*)

                                   Knowable (S4Grz1)

                      Intelligible matter (Z1)          Intelligible matter (Z1*)

                      Sensible matter. (X1)           Sensible Matter (X1*)

The right part is the proper theology. The machine can guess this as true, but cannot justify it rationally. The starred logic, minus the logic they split from, gives the “surrational”, which is not rational, but not irrational. It is a space in between.

nested structured~duality. You are sort of choosing sides.

I do not. I study just the theology of the machine, and compare it to the physical observation and to the mystical experiences, and try to get an idea of what happen. But I have chosen to be a scientist to avoid the discussion about truth or on vocabularies.

And keep well in mind that my hypothesis is very weak. To make it false needs to assume not just actual infinities, but very complex ad-hoc one, for which we might have evidence if we get a difference between the “intelligible matter” and the observation, but up to now, everything fits.

Taking an extreme. Going with your strength.  From my perspective, in some ~shamanistic-like method, I bore down through mind-body and mental-physical ...  mathematical physics-empiricism ... etc.,  and arrive at the underlying nested structured~duality common denominator, which  I approximate in some analog math and then point around at some very highly replicated common relational patterns.  The "test" of  my approach, basically, is to change scientific paradigms - to change over to a tetrahedral-first, rather than cube-first  educational step and/or then just pay attention to what develops.

I think mechanism changes the paradigm deeper in going from the Aristotelian (a creation, with or without a creator) and the Neoplatonist or Neopythagorean (numbers and a universal dreamer, which lost itself and re-awaken sometimes).

Going from cube to tetrahedral might have some importance, and be a change in chemistry, but I do not see a change of paradigm in metaphysics.

I intervened only because you seemed to believe your theory or hunch is contradictory to mechanism, and I did not see why.

If I am tracking on what  you are saying, you are still talking about  people or machines still replicating, say, ~silicon semi-conductor physical devices, so you mostly  are proposing hardware swaps which, IMO,  still validate/perpetuate the existence of the 'body'/physical reality as a definite part of the gameboard, and thus  is ~just a translation or obfuscation, rather than an actual  solution to the 'mind-body problem’.

It is used to reformulate the mind-body problem (intuitively, like with the Universal dovetailer paradox) and mathematically, in arithmetic, where the mind-body problem enforce the derivation of the physical appearance from 

The solution of that problem are the logics S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. If they deflect from the physical reality, we get a reason to doubt mechanism.

  (I say 'just', but  you're talking about using math/logic to create different types of vibrational systems which likely will have many good uses. I just don't see how translating or replicating it in other hardware "solves" the mind-body problem.)

That is just the step 0. You need to understand the step 2 and 3 (of the sane04 paper). We start from the mechanist assumption, and derive that physics has to be given by the logic above. 

My impression, or intuition, on this storyline is there may be some latent anger or hostility embedded in  toward  the carbon-water-based systems.  Life is hard.

I love carbon and I come from there. I discovered the universal machine in bacteria, and then in arithmetic.

But you are right, in the big picture, the “natural reality” is still only an aspect of the “cosmic consciousness”, a sort of illusion.

But it gives many rooms, also, and it does demolish the reductionist dogmatic theories. The distinction truth proof plays a crucial role here.

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Yes, that is the idea. Now, what would you predict if you are reconstituted physically in two places?

That is the next question. It can be shocking, but with the digital mechanist assumption we are duplicable (even if our level is sub-quantum, that does not violate the non-cloning theorem, actually that will entail it, later …).

[rf]  Predict?  My overall impression here sometimes is that you are trying to come up with a logic/math rationalization,

I jus derive consequences from system of beliefs. I show that the universal machine is closer to Plato than to Aristotle, and that we can make the test. 

perhaps for astral travel/oobe/~paranormal experiences you personally  have already had, imagined, or read about. And, perhaps you are less comfortable admitting, "Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand.

"Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand”. Yes! That is my position, and that is why I make clear the hypothesis and then reason.

You are the one talking like you knew that a machine cannot incarnate a soul. Where does that idea come from? 

There are many features in this human life and existence that are incomprehensible and can only be approximated or survived through faith.”

Exactly! The amazing thing is that the universal machine in arithmetic, and thus here and now in some sense, already utter similar things.

The universal machine knows that the more Che know about the arithmetical truth, the less she knows, proportionally, because she knows that the nature of that reality makes the machine ignorant part growing more quickly that its knowledge grow. It make you more and more modest with respect to any creatures, and it makes you more cautious, but also more prudent before dismissing their possible souls.

  If or when people develop teleportation systems, then, I suspect people can experience what it is like for them.

No, you can do the thought experiences, or use directly self-observing machines and do the math. That is the main advantage of Mechanism, it gives a scientific realm to very all the propositions, including some propositions about incommunicable or ineffable consciousness, first person, state, indirectly.

  If it's a "Cloner" they may or may not "know”.

Nobody will ever know, and some will believe (wrongly) that they know. That is why it is modest to call that a theology, and anyone has the right to say “no” to the doctor.

If a kid who is sick, it is a more difficult question, and their parents should be able to decide, listening to the kid if he can talk.

Swapping out functioning, respiring neural networking mass for silicon or germanium programmed/able devices with wiring harnesses, though, seems a bit too crude and uninformed, and premature, IMO.  Might you try it with a c.elegans first, or mice?

Different company try to build an artificial rat hippocampus. Drosophila brain and the Planaria one, are known at some very fine details. 

Some humans have already prosthetic part in the brain.

[rf] Yes, those are interesting, helpful developments.  Yet, these are analog, hardware vibratory swaps.  How does any of that "solve" the mind-body problem?   

First we must formulate the Mind-Body problem. You need to move to step 2, 3, 4, … The step zero was only the definition of mechanism. To tell clearly what we assume. The problem is what comes after all steps. The solution will be the machine’s solution when we translated the 8 steps of the reasoning in the language of a universal machine. That demands to have a good passive understanding of the 46 definitions in Gödel 1931, or the 25 definitions in Davis Dover book “Computability and Unsolvability”. 

People will say “yes” to the doctor, not for doing metaphysics, nor even to be immortal, but to see the next Soccer Cup, or to see they grandchildren growing ...

Your lesson was in applied math, but I will apply pure math to extract the applicable world from the pure math. First “intuitively” with thought experiences made possible with the mechanist assumption, and then from the mathematics of machine or number self-reference.

[rf] And when you (or is it a bank of Turing devices computing for several x-illion years) are done, then do you just scan me an then I can continue on with full vision in both eyes restored an, as in Christian faith, raised up with a "new body", albeit unaware of the pure math resurrection?

Yes. In that theory. Normally.

Nothing will disappear. Everything will appear, and perhaps too much, in which case computationalism is refuted.

[rf] Does that mean you run your program and if also get angry, hungry, Morlocks as well the nice stuff and then you say, "Oops!"?      What is the full signal  for computationalism being confirmed?

There are none. Never. Even the personal feeling of having survived with the brain transplant is not a proof, even for you, due to anosognosia (mental problem with lost the ability to see the problem, like blind people up to amnesia of sight).

[rf] Pardon me. What are the full signals, characteristics, attributes and outcomes associated with computationalism being refuted? 

A departure of the logic of the observable (quantum) and the one derived from self-reference (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*).

Also, thank you, I guess,  for the free anosognosia diagnosis.   

OK :)

Any doctor or company telling computationalism is proved, or “fully confirmed” is a liar. No machine can ever know which machine she is. That would be like claiming she knows that []p is her []p & p, which would make her unsound and even inconsistent.

But we can compare the physics in the head of the universal number (the stat on computation seen by the right point of view), and the physics that we observe. If it depart significantly, we get evidence that computationalism might be false.

[rf] So comparison on one calculated result with another is the proposed replacement for empirical tests? 

?

No, we need to test nature. 

  It seems to me like you stack the deck in your favor, starting out with a handful of math-logic tenets and  then seeming to allow that these same initial conditions will spilt and diverge?

That is how science proceeds. We build theory, keep the simpler which explains most facts, and abandon them if refuted. In our case, we get a way to measure our degree of non-mechanism. Until now, the result is zero, but of course we need to keep verifying.

..

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

Compare the logic of []p & <>t, with p sigma_1, and the quantum logic(s). Up to now, it matches, and it explains both qualia and quanta, without adding any magic neither in matter, nor in mind, nor in god(s).

[rf]  I think you mean "neither in matter nor in math".   Other add-ons and associations are of your own making. 

You have stop the formulation of the problem. You need to read the other steps to understand.

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

Mechanism exploits a fixed point between truth and its representation. It requires an act if faith. You can say “no” to the doctor.

Actually, it would be a blasphemy in the machine theology to assert that computationalism is true, or that the substitution level was correct.

[rf] I do not understand what you mean in these sentences. 

No machine can know that computationalism is true, unless she succeed in cutting all cycles of life and death, perhaps. 

[rf] ....So?  Or therefore...?  Is such a storyline supposed to be a comfort or palliative against, say, the human fear or death, or turns on the wheels of karma, or whatever? 

No. Mechanism at first sight is rather frightening, it makes consciousness into a prison (like Rossler said once).

There is a lot people don't know. This sort of the fun of life, in the mystery and the possibilities, even in the carbon-water-based life.   Are you having difficulty accepting that?

Not at all. I have a problem if that is used to refuse the sense of mysteries to the machine, and the study of how they manage it.

Don’t forget that those who claim to know the truth today are more on the side of the materialist, and some are dogmatic. 

I am a logician, I claim no truth, only testability, and of course the similarity with Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and I think a large part of the Veda, but also chan, zen, buddhism, in fact all the common core of the “mystics” in all religion, like described in the book by Aldous Huxley.

I am aware that this needs some amount of math, but that is usual when doing science. It means only some work.

I think you put some metaphysics in  AR which is not there. AR is the belief in the axioms above. If you doubt one, tell me which one, and give me some reason, but as I said, I have stopped to try to explain Mechanism to people who doubt that 2+2=4. 

[rf]   Apparently, I point at AR when I mean mechanism, or the proposal to replace respiring cell mass with ~silicon.   I am skeptical, perhaps more than skeptical. It seems akin to cutting down rain forests for more of my McDoubles.  Maybe it is  a bit too hostile for some reason -- perhaps as a reaction to our collectively not understanding reality and continuing to foster the myth that continuing only in the prior way will this time lead to a different result. Digital substiution would likely fix that, one way or another.

The prior are not that bad. It is just that in theology we have chosen (or be enforced by terror) the theology of Aristotle, which take for granted what Plato just made us doubting (physicalism, say).

[rf] Why not just change the scientific paradigm, then, and migrate away from the error/terror of the western/Aristotelian  (Cartesian cube/subjective-objective worldview? 

But that is what the mechanist hypothesis enforced. Going back from Aristotle to Plato, and even Pythagorus.

[rf]  Are you taking, say, these three  approximations cast in different instances of nested structured~duality  as ~truth? 

Either reality is WYSIWYG, or not. I tend to think. I search the truth. That is why I fear no hypotheses. Just let us reason and see.

Or one of them, or your preferred ~pure math-logic instance or whatever you mean by "mechanistic hypothesis" as "truth”? 

Never. The mechanist hypothesis is a religious faith, and it has to be forever.

The storyline I am advocating is, okay, we've explored the cube/subjective-objective instance

and its epicycles  for ~400 years;

?  (Are you not reducing things here?)

now shift over to starting with tetrahedron first before introducing cube and its associated abstractions.   Explore that for a few hundred years and then write a summary report based on   the   two data points rather than just the one.  Or rather, people may discover they need to run a few other instances as well. 

I mean, if your routine is going to calculate for a few billion years through  the infinity of calculations, why not set it in motion and just let it run?

I did! In 1991, I let run the universal dovetailer for one week. This is in the annexe of “Conscience et Mécanisme””. You also find theorem prover of the logics above, which sped the interview of the universal machine.

Shift over to nested structured~duality   and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion?

Advertising will not help you. Either tour nested structured~duality and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion are primitive notions, and you should tell their laws, or you derived them from something else, and you have to clear on what. 

[rf] 'Advertising' hasn't actually hurt.  NSD's concise terseness and generality propagates fairly well, usually in a page or two, or less. 

I have missed the link.

 Nested structured~duality and tetrahedron/attraction-repulsion are primitive notions,

A primitive notion needs axioms. To see if a notion is primitive, change their name, and see if the relevant meaning is conveyed.

I think you mean fundamental, not primitive. “Tetra” assumed 4, nested assumed geometry and topology, or some math structures, repulsion assumes even more.

  likeTao/yin-yang, and perhaps akin to or along a similar line with Michael Faraday's notions.  I suppose I could have derived them from a self-portrait, but it's also been an quest to "understand reality". So,perhaps I  make a lucky guess and think up -- make up the correct enough terms to fit in and fill the open holes.

Your  approach apparently, only works according to your different rules.  

Particularly if you are feeling like we already are deficient role models for our robots.

Then you seem unaware of Gödel and Turing. We must not confuse the 19th century automaton with the universal machine. That last one makes all effective theories about her incomplete and incompletable. I will try to explain this, but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism. On the contrary, it is a rational killer of all reductionism (of a certain type).

[rf] I've heard of Godel and incompleteness. I'm functionally illiterate about Turing universal machines  and/or what blessing they can bestow on humans.  I do not understand what you mean by "but the logic of the universal machine prevents Mechanism to be a reductionism”.

If you find a complete theory about a universal machine, and give it to that machine, the machine will refute it. If you try to control it too much, it becomes uncontrollable.

There just no complete theory of the universal machine. The incompleteness theorem is universal for all theories rich enough to define what is a universal machine.

And the “rich” machine knows that, already. It is just that we are at the very beginning of the story, and today, you still need to do some mathematics to listen to the machine.

[rf] Abstract math, or analog math? 

?

You need the discrete and the continuum, but both are abstract. 

For some mathematician, abstract art is concrete art, and natural number are the most concrete thing ever, even if non material.

You might be the one asking tor fix the boundaries to the human, if you think about it. 

[rf]  Yeah, I might be conservative that way, but it's more like I think it is way too early to just whine and give up, particularly  when there are other options to explore. 

Absolutely. I do not defend Mechanism at all. Just explain the consequences, and also, the incredible theology of the machine, (which is of course not dependent of mechanism).

But I can be hard with person who claim negative fact on machine, because they just confuse the 20th machine with the 19th conception of it.

Leibniz thought that his universal language would be complete, and david Hilbert too. The shock of the 20th century, is that very small and apparently simple machine can have utterly complex behaviour, and more than behaviour ...

[rf] What might be called evidence of nested structured~duality…   

Yes, that is *the* question you need to think about if you want your theory making a difference.

 I keep seeing that here in the modern era we have just been doing 400 years of hard time exploring just the Cartesian cube/subjective-objective instance of nested structured~duality.   We see secondary and tertiary and quaternary  consequences -- the so-called "unintended" consequences -- pile up and we don't seem to be at all aware that that has everything to do with the scientific paradigm we are running.  And, that is ALL 100% up to us to choose and shift around and explore other avenues. 

Frankly, you should elaborate on this. I still don’t know what you are talking about. What do you assume to make sense of your terms. Hunch are good, bit you need to be precise enough. 

[rf] My assumption is that social and economic and political systems are riding along on the tenets of the scientific paradigm. 

Which one, and in which field. In metaphysics, the materialist paradigm prevails, but it has never really work on consciousness and person, and that is a bit hidden (in occident) by the separating of science and religion. Only liars fear reason and research. The idea that science his opposed to religion is the most obscurantist idea I can conceive. And of course, this gives power to the 10000 charlatans, and those doing money on fears and wars.

Small or big flaws in the scientific paradigm drive  "unintended consequences" mostly relational or,as I think John Kineman might say, contextual or ecological. People might have a tendency to say, "Well, it's those darned Protestants, or Buddhists or others",    but the difficulty is really in the flawed tenets of the dominant scientific paradigm.  Change the scientific paradigm and things will change.   Shift to tetrahedron-first  in the educational sequence.

We must let theology coming back at the academy. We must transform the Enlightenment, and end the Middle-Âge.

Theology inquires and question all paradigms, once done with the modest attitude of the inquiring scientists.

  You want more Plato?  Shift to a second platonic solid and different number base.  Explore what is down that path.

The theology of the machine, and its physics, is provably formalism independent. The base of the numbers, the type of the numbers.

[rf] That is likely  an illusion within nested structured~duality or your instance of NSD. Maybe that seems true within your idealized simplified, non-nested  machines, 

Careful: the digital brain in the head is not a “model” or a simplification. We reason from starting that it is the real thing, at some necessarily unknown substitution level, Here you simplify too much what we assume.

Then, when you will understand what is a universal number or machine, you should understand that it is some highly complex. Basically all its attributes are already highly NOT computable. That is the high price to pay for universality. But I will explain this in some blog and give you the link when enough advanced. 

but thatis obviously not the case in carbon-water-based sp^3 hybridized analog math devices such as you and I and everyone else and other species living within the carbon-, water-, nitrogen-, phosphorus-, etc., cycles here on Earth. 

Do a piece of the exploration that you suggest, and present it is a way that everybody can understand, or understand that it could understand it, ...

If you have a nice bike, stop advertising it. Use it to bring something. That will clarify people’s mind and help to make sense of what you argue for.

[rf] Overcoming scientific paradigmatic anosognosia which is on a global scale is not something to rush willy-nilly into. Paradigm change  is difficult and does takes some time for people to acclimate.  Things seem to be progressing fairly well.

I still cannot make sense of it, and you use to doubt mechanism makes me willing to see where. But you fail to share your hunch to me. I prefer to be franc.  If someone has a better understanding, ask him or her to explain perhaps. 

Now mechanism might be false, which encourages us to make the 3p test,  before the doctors change us into machine without asking us.

[rf] Run it.    But if your estimate of billions of years before your test path produces its initial report,  why not admit defeat on that option?  

That defeat would be necessary. Deep computations cannot be shortened. Of course, it is not a defeat, or the human are a defeat.  It could need billions years to make a human, and two minutes to copy it. Nature uses 9 month. 

[rf] Dial back to the start of sexual reproduction. Add in the carbon-...cycles,,,,  Add none months.  

My bias and/or approximation, though, I guess goes back to insights of R.Buckminster Fuller where he makes the point that in the universe we find ourselves within and able to populate, the starting point is not point-line-plane-(~cube) but is tetrahedron.   

OK. That can be interesting, but not so much in mechanist metaphysics, as we have no dimension, and must explain all that from simpler things. But it can play some role elsewhere of course. 

[rf] So, which kind of system is the mechanist attempting to model or emulate??  Dimensional humans?? 

You and me.

Best,

Bruno

[rf] So, I am hearing you say you propose running a dimensionless ~model or emulating device to scribble out or emulate a mostly tetrahedrally dimensional organism.  Is that difficult?  It seems difficult if not impossible. 

If Mechanism is true, it is done, out of time and space, in infinitely many versions, already, in arithmetic.

If Mechanism is false, tell me precisely what you think to be not Turing emulable in the "tetrahedral dimensional organism”.

[rf] Whether I can or can't, my slant is, that point is not the point.  I take more of an observational POV.  The carbon-water-based system is doing its nested structural coding in the tetrahedral motif. That seems like that is news to you and something you immediately say, "irrelevant", while, in fact, you continue to munch your Cheerios or Wheaties and respire so you can say, "Irrelevant".   Think about it.  

Provide your clearer text on this matter, please.

It seems more logical (to me, take it as a grain of salt)  to rig up your framework to try to be symmetric on some levels with the thing you are attempting to model/emulate. 

There is no choice in the matter. If the physics extracted from self-reference is not symmetrical enough, we might need to abandon Mechanism,  The interest lies there. Actually, we do recover the symmetries. (Even miraculously: as the first person we start with can be shown highly antisymmetrical).

Hey,  another thing, I queries for "find primes in other number bases" or something like that and found: 

 """[–]oakenguitar3 1 point 2 years ago 

Base 6 is the best for representing the prime numbers in my opinion!!! Senary may be considered useful in the study of prime numbers since all primes other than 2 and 3, when expressed in senary, have 1 or 5 as the final digit. In senary the prime numbers are written 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 35, 45, 51, 101, 105, 111, 115, 125, 135, 141, 151, 155, 201, 211, ... This doesn't mean every number that has 1 or 5 as the last digit is a prime number but its a good thing to keep in mind. ]"""  on reddit.com

But you already knew that, right?

The behaviour of the primes last digits lead to many open problems, some dating from Tchebycheff. And this in all bases …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVvfY_lFUZ8

Best,

Bruno

 

Thank you.. I'll take a look.  I was sort of curious if 'vibrating tetrahedra might do senary’.

Kind regards,

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcmC23k9WoC3UQ2gN7oa7JSiY5MJnDUOUGJso1kTCnG9g%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Jay Kineman]

Bruno

I think we are asking how you define mechanism itself. What does it mean to "assume mechanism"?

John

[Ralph Frost]

Hi, Bruno, 

What Google says about "mechanism philosophy"  is  """Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts. """

Is that the storyline you assume when you say you "assume mechanism"?  It is one instance of nested structured~duality.  

From my angle (particularly considering carbon-water-based (cwb) living things), I am observing that the parts DO have intrinsic relationships at several levels and in one in particular, at the (~tetrahedral) sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level.  Also, I  consider aerobic organisms have  interrelationships with photosynthesizers and many other ecological partners.   So, in my instance of NSD, I ~see there are several levels of common interrelationships between the so-called "parts", so, to me  the wholes do have, or can have roles in activities, in contrast to what I think the above definition of "mechanism" specifies.  This also coincided with living things perhaps being somewhat like, but also different from machines.   If I am reading and interpreting that definition properly.

Of course, in assuming, asserting, considering, believing... that  reality is nested structured~duality,  including our various paradigms and trial theories, etc., I understand that the underlying principle supports Plato's and Aristotle's and others instances of NSD and also supports mechanism(s) and its alternatives and competitors, whatever they may be. That is, I suppose I stack the deck with the recognition of  the intrinsic relationship between the various levels and instances of reality.

I also suppose since there is one or more  "apparent regular mechanisms" in NSD (for instance: "1) pick a structure; 2) pick one or more dualities/differences; 3) build outward to the limits of those initial conditions") I am also a fan of regular mechanisms.

As for the type of mechanism that you favor, or describe as open or amenable to testing through logical and arithmetic means,  I am still unclear on what you mean and what you are driving at.   I can partly imagine a scifi notion of evolving to or invoking  silicon replicas so as to potentially be able to stay in stasis until arriving at another exoplanet,  but that seems a bit overly escapist rather than sitting with and addressing challenges that we face in our current  manifestation. 

I'm skeptical on the "substitution" and if it is predicated on the above assumption of mechanism,  I don't see how it works out as "equivalent" since living things are somewhat different from machines and various parts share intrinsic relations with other parts.   

...more below, some parts snipped...

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:02:55 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2018, at 16:53, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 3 Feb 2018, at 08:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

Look for the math note at the end...

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

My goal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

[rf] Me, too.  Toward that end, can you please  define/describe Mechanism or the theology of the machine?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

With either thought experience, based on a passive understanding of how a computer work, or with the mathematical definition, I can explain that if we assume mechanism then the physical appearance can no more be explained by the assumption of a physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe must be explained by a statistics related to the set of all computations, or more exactly, from a relative statistic.

The observable with measure one, with that statistic, will give the core logical structure obeyed by the physical appearances. That one can be derived mathematically, and has been derived mathematically, so we can compare it to the empirical observable, and it fits well. 

[rf] FWIW, I think your method or approach needs to scribble out dimensionful structure as well as logical. 

The theology of the machine is the mathematical study of what consistent (or sound) machine can prove about themselves, and this in all the intensional (modal) variants of provability imposed by the incompleteness theorem.

We get 5 main “points of view”

p (truth, 0-person point of view)

[]p (provable, believable, 3-person (point of )view)

[]p & p (knowable, 1-person view)

[]p & <>t  (observable, 1-person-plural views)

[]p & <>t & p (sensible, 1-person view).

I will have to insist that here p is a number which represenst an arithmetical proposition (eventually just the semi-computable one), and “[]” represents Gödel’s beweisbar (formally provable) arithmetical predicate. The precise definition of arithmetic is given in 46 arithmetical propositions. Martin Davis made this with Kleene’s predicate T(z, x, y) which says that y is the (halting) computation made by the machine z on input x. Provability and computability are represented faithfully in arithmetical relation. Then such machine can deduce (and infer) all the person perspective described above, and study their non trivial mathematics. Physics must be given with p restricted to the semi-computable predicates from the 1p and 1pp (1 person plural) related to []p & p, []p & <>t , []p & <>t & p. It works in the sense that we get quantum logics by reversing the modal analysis of quantum logic (with has []p -> p, and p -> []<>p has main axioms, and it allows to put a topology and metrics on the computations accessible from the machine, all this realised in the arithmetical reality, actually in *all* models of the arithmetical reality, that is all structure which verifies the axiom I gave to you some weeks ago).

[rf] It still looks to me like when you say you only assume only "0,s,+,*" and a short list of logic statements, that you are also secretly dragging along various 0-1-3.. person perspectives and theology associations.   But, like I have said, I truly lack insight on what you are aiming at.

But those five leads really to 8 mathematical theories, as three of them split along the truth/proof distinction.

The physics is given by the logic of []p & p, and/or []p & <>p, and/or []p & <>t & p, when p interpretation is restricted to the semi-computable sentences/formula. They give the domain of the first person indeterminacy (it is the way to translate computationalism in arithmetic, due to well known relationship between sigma_1-sentences,computability and provability).

Is it a 'proof' for ~panpsychism

On the contrary, the free-mind or the CC is not attached to any thing, but it is realised infinitely often in arithmetic, through some simple, yet non completely trivial, universal number relations.

[rf] As an aside, if, say, in structural coding in water molecules in respiration, say, 12^n patterns approximated these universal numbers that you mention, whould those artifacts be analogous or representative of "quales"?  Is that somewhat  relevant when you speck about universal numbers -- one number for one impression?

or for a dis-embodied individual 'consciousness'  including identity and ego, etc., and any associated multiple personalities an indiidual may have?

Yes, that one.

Also, what is the special ability or property of a Turing emulation or universal Turing machine (relative to other devices) as far as emulating, or is it, creating physical reality? 

It is more like dream and dream sharing. But some dreams can be very long and deep (in the technical sense of Bennett: it means roughly that to get your consciousness state, a very long history has to occur. But that does not mean that you are not duplicable, nor that you couldn’t survive with that deepness obliterated. Eventually, you are the one defining who you are.

[rf]  In some traditions there are patterns like "healing of memories".  Others hold that we store ~memories an/or trauma "in our bodies", and thus the effectiveness of certain "body work" for releasing memories -- maybe like fow of qi or xi in ~eastern traditions.    I can sort of imagine how those sorts of things ~work in structurally coding experiences into stacks of water molecules formed  in respiration and then within bound water layers in protein matrices,   but I am not envisioning what kind of mechanism you propose or think is running in your model so that your substituted artifact generates and stores and is influenced by patterns within its experience.   Do you postulate a special Turing device that generate new universal numbers, but with ~structural similarities or call-backs to duplicated readouts?

You need to understand that the notion of computation is purely arithmetical. We can define it using only 0, +, *, s, and the 7 axioms given.

If you are OK with the triangular and tetrahedral numbers in elementary arithmetic, and if you are rational enough, then you should be OK with the computations in Arithmetic. 

[rf] I am trying to track on what you are proposing  for  storing numbers and having  their mere structural coding equaling and influential within creative and life-relevant behaviors and ways.   I ~see how it works in the cwb sp^3 hybridized structural coding because the ~tetrahedral structural coding is pretty much universal and co-evolved.     To me, it doesn't look like "it" works when you suggest the secondary number words and signals are and always have been "primary".   

Look, I am creating a blog where I will try to provide some shortcut to the main thing. 

On 1 Feb 2018, at 08:48, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:  [in part]... 

Look, I will get a rabbit out of a hat. I will get the appaerence of the seeds and the apples, and the children and you and myself from 2+2 = 4.

[rf] Do you mean, physically functioning ~copies? Or are you talking about generating descriptions or generating, like a virtual reality program? 

I meant each of that at different step of the reasoning. From step 1 to 6, I assume the digital mechanist hypothesis, which is that I survive with a digital, yet still physical brain. Step 7 and 8 explains why this lead to a transformation of the mind-body problem into the problem of deriving physics from machine arithmetical self-reference.

[rf] Does your statement here ~mean (approximately) that your approach to solving the mind-body problem is to ~assume mind is ~arithmetic or pure mathematics and then sort of logically back-calculate 'physics' and 'laws of physics' (developed via empiricism and conveyed to you by carbon-water-based ancestors by word of mouth..) leading to pointing to an infinity of calcs and computations, and since your starting assumption shifts the overall balance all the way over  into the 'mind' and thereby abstracting the 'body' completely away,  that, in order to ~solve or get closure on the alleged mind-body problem, in your approach the theorized and perhaps idealized  'digital mechanism substitution'  comes forward as "the required test or proof"? Is that the storyline?

You get right the pieces of the puzzle, but put them in the wrong order. My assumption is that the brain is Turing emulable, in the sense, that if a doctor does it at the hospital, with your knowledge and consent, or without knowledge and consent, you would survive this in the usual sense: you would not see the difference, except from possible 3p clues, like some bandage on the head.

It is the idea that the physical body has no a so special organ that a numerical machine cannot emulate at some (perhaps low) level.

It is a natural hypothesis, because we don’t know any phenomena in Nature which is not Turing emulable. Quantum computer are Turing emulable for example. The only exception would be the wave reduction in case it would be thought as a *physical phenomena*, but this would be magic to me. (The “bad” magic, that is the one to stop investigation and prevent reason (and eventually hide facts).

[rf] Is developing physical intuition Turing emulable (TE)? Changing paradigms?  Intuition?  

You exclude "collapse of the wave function" due to some connection with physical reality that your model can't handle.   I suggest that the structural coding story outlined above where we have a representation of surroundings in environment-formed stacks of ordered water which is also influential (via unfurling hydrogen-bonding) is in the same class as "collapse of the wave function".  And, perhaps that is where your "assume mechanism" model somes up short.  

So my hypothesis is very weak, and virtually believed by all scientists, which makes them sanely sceptic with the result: which is that the notion of primary physical reality stop making sense, and indeed the ultimate realty becomes the (sigma_1, semi-computable) arithmetical reality, and the physical and psychological realties emerges from that. It makes also this weak form of Mechanism testable, and that to QM, we get confirmation.

[rf] Where did you get the idea of  "primary physical reality"? Is that your complaint about inheritances from Aristotle? The fact is reality is nested structured~duality, and virtually all scientists act and believe and cipher in line with this fact and yet they are unaware of the fact as the underlying general principle.  If you can scribble out the proof in arithmetic and logic, that would be an accomplishment, but they can also just observe it via the analog math or just by shifting their awareness slightly -- today. 

If so, I sort of track on your instance of ~pure math/logic rationality-only

Be careful. The point is that the arithmetical reality is NOT fully rational, from the points of view of the machine (in arithmetic). That is why they develop a theology. The five hypostases above split in eight, along the proof/truth distinction coming from incompleteness:

                                       True

                        Provable (G1)   Provable (G1*)

                                   Knowable (S4Grz1)

                      Intelligible matter (Z1)          Intelligible matter (Z1*)

                      Sensible matter. (X1)           Sensible Matter (X1*)

The right part is the proper theology. The machine can guess this as true, but cannot justify it rationally. The starred logic, minus the logic they split from, gives the “surrational”, which is not rational, but not irrational. It is a space in between.

[rf] Where is developing physical intuition and changing paradigms and creating new Turing action look-up tables?  

nested structured~duality. You are sort of choosing sides.

I do not. I study just the theology of the machine, and compare it to the physical observation and to the mystical experiences, and try to get an idea of what happen. But I have chosen to be a scientist to avoid the discussion about truth or on vocabularies.

And keep well in mind that my hypothesis is very weak. To make it false needs to assume not just actual infinities, but very complex ad-hoc one, for which we might have evidence if we get a difference between the “intelligible matter” and the observation, but up to now, everything fits.

[rf] Has the machine created itself and then reported ALL this (including associations with other parts of human knowledge) to you independently of you, or are you in a rather, central paternal, interpretive, guiding role in the developments? 

Taking an extreme. Going with your strength.  From my perspective, in some ~shamanistic-like method, I bore down through mind-body and mental-physical ...  mathematical physics-empiricism ... etc.,  and arrive at the underlying nested structured~duality common denominator, which  I approximate in some analog math and then point around at some very highly replicated common relational patterns.  The "test" of  my approach, basically, is to change scientific paradigms - to change over to a tetrahedral-first, rather than cube-first  educational step and/or then just pay attention to what develops.

I think mechanism changes the paradigm deeper in going from the Aristotelian (a creation, with or without a creator) and the Neoplatonist or Neopythagorean (numbers and a universal dreamer, which lost itself and re-awaken sometimes).

[rf] These ~two are just different instances of nested structured~duality.    If your ~goal is to ~refute hard little atoms as being true physical reality, then I think you need to drill down to the NSD/pattern level. But once you do, or the herd does, we are all still right ~here  needing to make changes to the scientific paradigm.  

Going from cube to tetrahedral might have some importance, and be a change in chemistry, but I do not see a change of paradigm in metaphysics.

[rf] I'm going to bet you say that because you haven't tried it.  Going from point-line-plane to tetrahedron as a starting point, to me, seems significant and metaphysical.

 

I intervened only because you seemed to believe your theory or hunch is contradictory to mechanism, and I did not see why.

[rf] Thank you.  I think my complaint is with the proposed substitution.  You may advertise it as "equivalent", but my impression is all outcomes of your tests will be uncertain or indeterminant -- if that's the right term.  ~You certainly will get other instances of nested structured~duality.    But, as outlined above, I think we have some system-wide, cross-domain,  tetrahedral (sp^3) relationships which manifest as interactive hydrogen-bonding packets.   Maybe you can program devices to emulate or do programmed associative look-ups, but I am not grasping how generating new universal numbers relates to surviving or supporting cwb organisms surviving and supporting robust ecological networks.   The fundamental transaction/pattern is missing or absent in your device. 

 

If I am tracking on what  you are saying, you are still talking about  people or machines still replicating, say, ~silicon semi-conductor physical devices, so you mostly  are proposing hardware swaps which, IMO,  still validate/perpetuate the existence of the 'body'/physical reality as a definite part of the gameboard, and thus  is ~just a translation or obfuscation, rather than an actual  solution to the 'mind-body problem’.

It is used to reformulate the mind-body problem (intuitively, like with the Universal dovetailer paradox) and mathematically, in arithmetic, where the mind-body problem enforce the derivation of the physical appearance from 

The solution of that problem are the logics S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. If they deflect from the physical reality, we get a reason to doubt mechanism.

[rf] If you ran such a program back in 1845 AD and it output a prediction for  relativity and QED, would those be considered a deflection from physical reality?  Who is doing the assessments and the judging?

(I say 'just', but  you're talking about using math/logic to create different types of vibrational systems which likely will have many good uses. I just don't see how translating or replicating it in other hardware "solves" the mind-body problem.)

That is just the step 0. You need to understand the step 2 and 3 (of the sane04 paper). We start from the mechanist assumption, and derive that physics has to be given by the logic above. 

My impression, or intuition, on this storyline is there may be some latent anger or hostility embedded in  toward  the carbon-water-based systems.  Life is hard.

I love carbon and I come from there. I discovered the universal machine in bacteria, and then in arithmetic.

[rf] Seems to me you encountered nested structural coding and an awareness of nested structured~duality but lacked the vocabulary. 

But you are right, in the big picture, the “natural reality” is still only an aspect of the “cosmic consciousness”, a sort of illusion.

But it gives many rooms, also, and it does demolish the reductionist dogmatic theories. The distinction truth proof plays a crucial role here.

[rf] Can you explain more?

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Yes, that is the idea. Now, what would you predict if you are reconstituted physically in two places?

That is the next question. It can be shocking, but with the digital mechanist assumption we are duplicable (even if our level is sub-quantum, that does not violate the non-cloning theorem, actually that will entail it, later …).

[rf]  Predict?  My overall impression here sometimes is that you are trying to come up with a logic/math rationalization,

I jus derive consequences from system of beliefs. I show that the universal machine is closer to Plato than to Aristotle, and that we can make the test. 

[rf] Do your tests all have ~physical manifestations?   If so, then it seems to me what you are verifying/testing is reality is nested structured~duality.

perhaps for astral travel/oobe/~paranormal experiences you personally  have already had, imagined, or read about. And, perhaps you are less comfortable admitting, "Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand.

"Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand”. Yes! That is my position, and that is why I make clear the hypothesis and then reason.

You are the one talking like you knew that a machine cannot incarnate a soul. Where does that idea come from? 

[rf] No doubt, Protestant Biblical verses -- but, hey, formed from clay -- mostly silicon.... ,  and from impressions gained from reading "Magnus, the Robot Killer".   I presently think I, and I project, people have quite a bit of remediation and development work on their own souls before implementing their misshapened  impressions in silicon.    

There are many features in this human life and existence that are incomprehensible and can only be approximated or survived through faith.”

Exactly! The amazing thing is that the universal machine in arithmetic, and thus here and now in some sense, already utter similar things.

[rf] Perhaps you have found your Savior? 

The universal machine knows that the more Che know about the arithmetical truth, the less she knows, proportionally, because she knows that the nature of that reality makes the machine ignorant part growing more quickly that its knowledge grow. It make you more and more modest with respect to any creatures, and it makes you more cautious, but also more prudent before dismissing their possible souls.

  If or when people develop teleportation systems, then, I suspect people can experience what it is like for them.

No, you can do the thought experiences, or use directly self-observing machines and do the math. That is the main advantage of Mechanism, it gives a scientific realm to very all the propositions, including some propositions about incommunicable or ineffable consciousness, first person, state, indirectly.

...

Swapping out functioning, respiring neural networking mass for silicon or germanium programmed/able devices with wiring harnesses, though, seems a bit too crude and uninformed, and premature, IMO.  Might you try it with a c.elegans first, or mice?

Different company try to build an artificial rat hippocampus. Drosophila brain and the Planaria one, are known at some very fine details. 

Some humans have already prosthetic part in the brain.

[rf] Yes, those are interesting, helpful developments.  Yet, these are analog, hardware vibratory swaps.  How does any of that "solve" the mind-body problem?   

First we must formulate the Mind-Body problem. You need to move to step 2, 3, 4, … The step zero was only the definition of mechanism. To tell clearly what we assume. The problem is what comes after all steps. The solution will be the machine’s solution when we translated the 8 steps of the reasoning in the language of a universal machine. That demands to have a good passive understanding of the 46 definitions in Gödel 1931, or the 25 definitions in Davis Dover book “Computability and Unsolvability”. 

People will say “yes” to the doctor, not for doing metaphysics, nor even to be immortal, but to see the next Soccer Cup, or to see they grandchildren growing ...

Your lesson was in applied math, but I will apply pure math to extract the applicable world from the pure math. First “intuitively” with thought experiences made possible with the mechanist assumption, and then from the mathematics of machine or number self-reference.

[rf] And when you (or is it a bank of Turing devices computing for several x-illion years) are done, then do you just scan me an then I can continue on with full vision in both eyes restored an, as in Christian faith, raised up with a "new body", albeit unaware of the pure math resurrection?

Yes. In that theory. Normally.

Nothing will disappear. Everything will appear, and perhaps too much, in which case computationalism is refuted.

[rf] Does that mean you run your program and if also get angry, hungry, Morlocks as well the nice stuff and then you say, "Oops!"?      What is the full signal  for computationalism being confirmed?

There are none. Never. Even the personal feeling of having survived with the brain transplant is not a proof, even for you, due to anosognosia (mental problem with lost the ability to see the problem, like blind people up to amnesia of sight).

[rf] Pardon me. What are the full signals, characteristics, attributes and outcomes associated with computationalism being refuted? 

A departure of the logic of the observable (quantum) and the one derived from self-reference (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*).

Also, thank you, I guess,  for the free anosognosia diagnosis.   

OK :)

Any doctor or company telling computationalism is proved, or “fully confirmed” is a liar. No machine can ever know which machine she is. That would be like claiming she knows that []p is her []p & p, which would make her unsound and even inconsistent.

But we can compare the physics in the head of the universal number (the stat on computation seen by the right point of view), and the physics that we observe. If it depart significantly, we get evidence that computationalism might be false.

[rf] So comparison on one calculated result with another is the proposed replacement for empirical tests? 

No, we need to test nature. 

[rf]  So, we still do empirical testing by arranging and observing things in nested structured~duality, but we are less considering the surroundings as "physical" and more as what it is, as nested structured~duality?

Or, as you might say or approximate: as dissociated or dimensionless arithmetic?  

  It seems to me like you stack the deck in your favor, starting out with a handful of math-logic tenets and  then seeming to allow that these same initial conditions will spilt and diverge?

That is how science proceeds. We build theory, keep the simpler which explains most facts, and abandon them if refuted. In our case, we get a way to measure our degree of non-mechanism. Until now, the result is zero, but of course we need to keep verifying.

 

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

[rf]  By "if mechanism is true", do you mean as in the Google definition of parts or living organisms lacking intrinsic relationships with other parts?

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

Compare the logic of []p & <>t, with p sigma_1, and the quantum logic(s). Up to now, it matches, and it explains both qualia and quanta, without adding any magic neither in matter, nor in mind, nor in god(s).

[rf]  I think you mean "neither in matter nor in math".   Other add-ons and associations are of your own making. 

You have stop the formulation of the problem. You need to read the other steps to understand.

[rf] Have you hit a halting point?  

I observe what I am doing more as reading what you express about arithmetic/logic and thinking/swapping in """oh, you mean, nested structural coding in place of "arithmetic/logic".""", since you and I (and other readers) are all running our own instances of nested structural coding to track on the description. 

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

<div

[rf] Truncation encountered....

Best regards, 

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi John,

On 10 Feb 2018, at 00:35, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Bruno

I think we are asking how you define mechanism itself. What does it mean to "assume mechanism”?

It is the assumption that we can replace the brain by a computer, and survive in the usual clinical sense through this, like most people would say that we can survive with a mechanical pump at the place of the heart.

Technically, my version of mechanism is much weaker, but this is the main idea.

It is a digital version of Descartes’ Mechanism, although the consequence will be an immaterialist monism (the basic realm becoming only the Numbers, or Turing equivalent). But that is the consequence, and not part of the hypothesis.

Another version is that the brain (or the body) works without the intervention of any actual infinities, or non computable entities.

Note that this entails that the physical, and consciousness are not computable notions. It is really the body, or 3p-self, that the doctor will suppose to be a mechanism at some level of description.

OK? Don’t hesitate to ask for more, as different people have different problem with this.

Many people identifies easily materialism and mechanism. Yet,  I have shown them to be at the antipode of each other. 

Best,

Bruno

John

On Feb 9, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

With either thought experience, based on a passive understanding of how a computer work, or with the mathematical definition, I can explain that if we assume mechanism then the physical appearance can no more be explained by the assumption of a physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe must be explained by a statistics related to the set of all computations, or more exactly, from a relative statistic.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/525102EB-9FFB-485C-9763-0C88531627D2%40colorado.edu.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Feb 2018, at 13:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Bruno, 

What Google says about "mechanism philosophy"  is  """Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts. “""

That is not too bad.Of course “natural wholes” is a bit vague, but the idea is there. The essence of being a machine, or having a body being a machine, is that we can be fixed though substitution of parts. 

Biology has always been my source of inspiration for mechanism, as biological bodies replace their constituents all the time. Few atoms last for more than seven years in the body, according to some sources. 

Is that the storyline you assume when you say you "assume mechanism”? 

Yes. 

It is one instance of nested structured~duality.  

Can you give me an instance of something which is not a nested structured-duality, and explain why? Sometimes it looks you apply the term to thing, but here you apply it to a believe and I fell lost in my attempt to grasp what you mean.

From my angle (particularly considering carbon-water-based (cwb) living things), I am observing that the parts DO have intrinsic relationships at several levels and in one in particular, at the (~tetrahedral) sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level. 

If that is intrinsic, it means it cannot be Turing emulated. That seems highly speculative. Normally sp^3 bonding, and everything in quantum mechanics is known to be Turing emulable, even quantum computers.

Also, I  consider aerobic organisms have  interrelationships with photosynthesizers and many other ecological partners.   So, in my instance of NSD, I ~see there are several levels of common interrelationships between the so-called "parts", so, to me  the wholes do have, or can have roles in activities, in contrast to what I think the above definition of "mechanism" specifies. 

With Mechanism, the whole is also bigger than the parts. The relation between the parts are more than the parts. Then the math shows that the “whole” of a universal machine is unboundedly more complex that the parts. 

This also coincided with living things perhaps being somewhat like, but also different from machines.   If I am reading and interpreting that definition properly.

Of course, in assuming, asserting, considering, believing... that  reality is nested structured~duality,  including our various paradigms and trial theories, etc., I understand that the underlying principle supports Plato's and Aristotle's and others instances of NSD and also supports mechanism(s) and its alternatives and competitors, whatever they may be. That is, I suppose I stack the deck with the recognition of  the intrinsic relationship between the various levels and instances of reality.

Ah! OK. Then what you do is like choosing a low substitution level. You would survive if the computer in your skull implements correctly all sp^3 bondings.

Yes, I think that the level is very plausibly that low.

I also suppose since there is one or more  "apparent regular mechanisms" in NSD (for instance: "1) pick a structure; 2) pick one or more dualities/differences; 3) build outward to the limits of those initial conditions") I am also a fan of regular mechanisms.

As for the type of mechanism that you favor, or describe as open or amenable to testing through logical and arithmetic means,  I am still unclear on what you mean and what you are driving at.   I can partly imagine a scifi notion of evolving to or invoking  silicon replicas so as to potentially be able to stay in stasis until arriving at another exoplanet,  but that seems a bit overly escapist rather than sitting with and addressing challenges that we face in our current  manifestation. 

The “science-fiction” is just a way to explain to the layman what needs a lot of math for the experts to swallow the consequences. 

I'm skeptical on the "substitution" and if it is predicated on the above assumption of mechanism,  I don't see how it works out as "equivalent" since living things are somewhat different from machines and various parts share intrinsic relations with other parts.   

All machines looking at their body/environment, *have to see* much more than what is relevant for the consciousness to manifest itself. This comes from the 1p indeterminacy (step 3 of the UDA, sane04).

...more below, some parts snipped...

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:02:55 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2018, at 16:53, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 3 Feb 2018, at 08:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

Look for the math note at the end...

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

My goal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

[rf] Me, too.  Toward that end, can you please  define/describe Mechanism or the theology of the machine?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

With either thought experience, based on a passive understanding of how a computer work, or with the mathematical definition, I can explain that if we assume mechanism then the physical appearance can no more be explained by the assumption of a physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe must be explained by a statistics related to the set of all computations, or more exactly, from a relative statistic.

The observable with measure one, with that statistic, will give the core logical structure obeyed by the physical appearances. That one can be derived mathematically, and has been derived mathematically, so we can compare it to the empirical observable, and it fits well. 

[rf] FWIW, I think your method or approach needs to scribble out dimensionful structure as well as logical. 

You are right. 

The theology of the machine is the mathematical study of what consistent (or sound) machine can prove about themselves, and this in all the intensional (modal) variants of provability imposed by the incompleteness theorem.

We get 5 main “points of view”

p (truth, 0-person point of view)

[]p (provable, believable, 3-person (point of )view)

[]p & p (knowable, 1-person view)

[]p & <>t  (observable, 1-person-plural views)

[]p & <>t & p (sensible, 1-person view).

I will have to insist that here p is a number which represenst an arithmetical proposition (eventually just the semi-computable one), and “[]” represents Gödel’s beweisbar (formally provable) arithmetical predicate. The precise definition of arithmetic is given in 46 arithmetical propositions. Martin Davis made this with Kleene’s predicate T(z, x, y) which says that y is the (halting) computation made by the machine z on input x. Provability and computability are represented faithfully in arithmetical relation. Then such machine can deduce (and infer) all the person perspective described above, and study their non trivial mathematics. Physics must be given with p restricted to the semi-computable predicates from the 1p and 1pp (1 person plural) related to []p & p, []p & <>t , []p & <>t & p. It works in the sense that we get quantum logics by reversing the modal analysis of quantum logic (with has []p -> p, and p -> []<>p has main axioms, and it allows to put a topology and metrics on the computations accessible from the machine, all this realised in the arithmetical reality, actually in *all* models of the arithmetical reality, that is all structure which verifies the axiom I gave to you some weeks ago).

[rf] It still looks to me like when you say you only assume only "0,s,+,*" and a short list of logic statements, that you are also secretly dragging along various 0-1-3.. person perspectives and theology associations.   But, like I have said, I truly lack insight on what you are aiming at.

Yes. You have to study the thing. All the 0-1-3… person views are derived from arithmetic. (Even without assuming Mechanism, but with Mechanism, we get the consciousness easily, and less axiomatically that needed in the pure math part).

But those five leads really to 8 mathematical theories, as three of them split along the truth/proof distinction.

The physics is given by the logic of []p & p, and/or []p & <>p, and/or []p & <>t & p, when p interpretation is restricted to the semi-computable sentences/formula. They give the domain of the first person indeterminacy (it is the way to translate computationalism in arithmetic, due to well known relationship between sigma_1-sentences,computability and provability).

Is it a 'proof' for ~panpsychism

On the contrary, the free-mind or the CC is not attached to any thing, but it is realised infinitely often in arithmetic, through some simple, yet non completely trivial, universal number relations.

[rf] As an aside, if, say, in structural coding in water molecules in respiration, say, 12^n patterns approximated these universal numbers that you mention, whould those artifacts be analogous or representative of "quales"?  Is that somewhat  relevant when you speck about universal numbers -- one number for one impression?

Not really. The quake comes from the self-reference, which are defined globally, and are independent of any parts. 

or for a dis-embodied individual 'consciousness'  including identity and ego, etc., and any associated multiple personalities an indiidual may have?

Yes, that one.

Also, what is the special ability or property of a Turing emulation or universal Turing machine (relative to other devices) as far as emulating, or is it, creating physical reality? 

It is more like dream and dream sharing. But some dreams can be very long and deep (in the technical sense of Bennett: it means roughly that to get your consciousness state, a very long history has to occur. But that does not mean that you are not duplicable, nor that you couldn’t survive with that deepness obliterated. Eventually, you are the one defining who you are.

[rf]  In some traditions there are patterns like "healing of memories".  Others hold that we store ~memories an/or trauma "in our bodies", and thus the effectiveness of certain "body work" for releasing memories -- maybe like fow of qi or xi in ~eastern traditions.    I can sort of imagine how those sorts of things ~work in structurally coding experiences into stacks of water molecules formed  in respiration and then within bound water layers in protein matrices,   but I am not envisioning what kind of mechanism you propose or think is running in your model so that your substituted artifact generates and stores and is influenced by patterns within its experience.   Do you postulate a special Turing device that generate new universal numbers, but with ~structural similarities or call-backs to duplicated readouts?

You need to understand that the notion of computation is purely arithmetical. We can define it using only 0, +, *, s, and the 7 axioms given.

If you are OK with the triangular and tetrahedral numbers in elementary arithmetic, and if you are rational enough, then you should be OK with the computations in Arithmetic. 

[rf] I am trying to track on what you are proposing  for  storing numbers and having  their mere structural coding equaling and influential within creative and life-relevant behaviors and ways.   I ~see how it works in the cwb sp^3 hybridized structural coding because the ~tetrahedral structural coding is pretty much universal and co-evolved.     To me, it doesn't look like "it" works when you suggest the secondary number words and signals are and always have been "primary".   

Look, I am creating a blog where I will try to provide some shortcut to the main thing. 

On 1 Feb 2018, at 08:48, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:  [in part]... 

Look, I will get a rabbit out of a hat. I will get the appaerence of the seeds and the apples, and the children and you and myself from 2+2 = 4.

[rf] Do you mean, physically functioning ~copies? Or are you talking about generating descriptions or generating, like a virtual reality program? 

I meant each of that at different step of the reasoning. From step 1 to 6, I assume the digital mechanist hypothesis, which is that I survive with a digital, yet still physical brain. Step 7 and 8 explains why this lead to a transformation of the mind-body problem into the problem of deriving physics from machine arithmetical self-reference.

[rf] Does your statement here ~mean (approximately) that your approach to solving the mind-body problem is to ~assume mind is ~arithmetic or pure mathematics and then sort of logically back-calculate 'physics' and 'laws of physics' (developed via empiricism and conveyed to you by carbon-water-based ancestors by word of mouth..) leading to pointing to an infinity of calcs and computations, and since your starting assumption shifts the overall balance all the way over  into the 'mind' and thereby abstracting the 'body' completely away,  that, in order to ~solve or get closure on the alleged mind-body problem, in your approach the theorized and perhaps idealized  'digital mechanism substitution'  comes forward as "the required test or proof"? Is that the storyline?

You get right the pieces of the puzzle, but put them in the wrong order. My assumption is that the brain is Turing emulable, in the sense, that if a doctor does it at the hospital, with your knowledge and consent, or without knowledge and consent, you would survive this in the usual sense: you would not see the difference, except from possible 3p clues, like some bandage on the head.

It is the idea that the physical body has no a so special organ that a numerical machine cannot emulate at some (perhaps low) level.

It is a natural hypothesis, because we don’t know any phenomena in Nature which is not Turing emulable. Quantum computer are Turing emulable for example. The only exception would be the wave reduction in case it would be thought as a *physical phenomena*, but this would be magic to me. (The “bad” magic, that is the one to stop investigation and prevent reason (and eventually hide facts).

[rf] Is developing physical intuition Turing emulable (TE)? Changing paradigms?  Intuition?  

You exclude "collapse of the wave function" due to some connection with physical reality that your model can't handle.   I suggest that the structural coding story outlined above where we have a representation of surroundings in environment-formed stacks of ordered water which is also influential (via unfurling hydrogen-bonding) is in the same class as "collapse of the wave function".  And, perhaps that is where your "assume mechanism" model somes up short.  

I tend to exclude the collapse of the wave because 

- 1) I do not see any evidence

- 2) it implies action at a distance, which refute all known theories in physics.

The many-world is just the literal reading of QM, and the collapse is an added speculation, to make us special. It is nonsense driven by coquetry, I would say. 

To save your own idea, I do not see at all why you put it in the same class as “collapse of the wave function”. 

If true, you could as well tell me that it is in the same class of “Santa Klaus”. I would take it as a reductio ad absurdum.

Of course, with mechanism, once you learn that all computations are emulated (in a block-universe or block-mind sort of way) in arithmetic, it is natural to expect a “many-world” aspect of the physical reality, given that physics has to be retrieved from a statistics on first person plural experiences. Everett confirms Mechanism, thanks to Gödel (!).

So my hypothesis is very weak, and virtually believed by all scientists, which makes them sanely sceptic with the result: which is that the notion of primary physical reality stop making sense, and indeed the ultimate realty becomes the (sigma_1, semi-computable) arithmetical reality, and the physical and psychological realties emerges from that. It makes also this weak form of Mechanism testable, and that to QM, we get confirmation.

[rf] Where did you get the idea of  "primary physical reality"? Is that your complaint about inheritances from Aristotle?

It is a very natural hypothesis in metaphysics, made by Aristotle. But I do not complain about any hypothesis.

My complain is only about its invalid misuse in the philosophy of mind/theology/cognitive science. It begins in Aristotle, but the refutation of Aristotle was already in the Parmenides (but that would be long to explain, and is certainly debatable).

Of course, I complain of any dogma, in any domain (except the military, where we made ourself into less than a universal machine, in a spirit to save those we care about, in urgent situation …).

Materialism, in the weak sense of the doctrine that some irreducibly token of matter would exist, and need to be assumed in some theory of everything, has been a dogma for some institutionalised religion, and, science has been separated from religion, artificially, opting the door to the charlatans and those doing money based on lies.

Now, I only provide a tool to test materialism OR mechanism. But QM (without collapse) is confirming Mechanism, even its most startling shocking feature like the many-histories and the non booleanity of the observable.

The fact is reality is nested structured~duality, and virtually all scientists act and believe and cipher in line with this fact and yet they are unaware of the fact as the underlying general principle.  If you can scribble out the proof in arithmetic and logic, that would be an accomplishment, but they can also just observe it via the analog math or just by shifting their awareness slightly -- today. 

I think I see what you mean, but that is not a “scientific theory”. It is a deep aspect of reality, but unless you can explain it in first or second order logic, it will look like a sequence of arbitrary word.

And with me you are a bit unlucky, because to explain your “theory” (if you want it as a theory) to me, you have to succeed in explaining to any arbitrary (but Löbian) Universal Machine.

If so, I sort of track on your instance of ~pure math/logic rationality-only

Be careful. The point is that the arithmetical reality is NOT fully rational, from the points of view of the machine (in arithmetic). That is why they develop a theology. The five hypostases above split in eight, along the proof/truth distinction coming from incompleteness:

                                       True

                        Provable (G1)   Provable (G1*)

                                   Knowable (S4Grz1)

                      Intelligible matter (Z1)          Intelligible matter (Z1*)

                      Sensible matter. (X1)           Sensible Matter (X1*)

The right part is the proper theology. The machine can guess this as true, but cannot justify it rationally. The starred logic, minus the logic they split from, gives the “surrational”, which is not rational, but not irrational. It is a space in between.

[rf] Where is developing physical intuition and changing paradigms and creating new Turing action look-up tables?  

The change is between a creation, with or without a creator, and no creation, just the simplest mathematics, and a God who is a Dreamer, and lost itself recurrently.

For new look-up table, just read any magazine any days.

For the physical intuition, it is plausibly the one of the modality []p & <>t & p, at the G* level, which mixes in a complex (and quantum logical) way the measurable quanta and the ineffable qualia.

nested structured~duality. You are sort of choosing sides.

I do not. I study just the theology of the machine, and compare it to the physical observation and to the mystical experiences, and try to get an idea of what happen. But I have chosen to be a scientist to avoid the discussion about truth or on vocabularies.

And keep well in mind that my hypothesis is very weak. To make it false needs to assume not just actual infinities, but very complex ad-hoc one, for which we might have evidence if we get a difference between the “intelligible matter” and the observation, but up to now, everything fits.

[rf] Has the machine created itself and then reported ALL this (including associations with other parts of human knowledge) to you independently of you, or are you in a rather, central paternal, interpretive, guiding role in the developments? 

I could say that I am the humble messager of the universal machine, and I can do that thanks to Turing, Post, Kleene, Church, Gödel, Löb, Solovay, and many others who made the hard job. I just plug the pieces of the puzzle.

The machine has not to create itself, no more than prime numbers have to created themselves/ We assume classical logic (intuitionist logic would work as well) + the only axioms:

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else, besides mechanism at the meta-level.

Taking an extreme. Going with your strength.  From my perspective, in some ~shamanistic-like method, I bore down through mind-body and mental-physical ...  mathematical physics-empiricism ... etc.,  and arrive at the underlying nested structured~duality common denominator, which  I approximate in some analog math and then point around at some very highly replicated common relational patterns.  The "test" of  my approach, basically, is to change scientific paradigms - to change over to a tetrahedral-first, rather than cube-first  educational step and/or then just pay attention to what develops.

I think mechanism changes the paradigm deeper in going from the Aristotelian (a creation, with or without a creator) and the Neoplatonist or Neopythagorean (numbers and a universal dreamer, which lost itself and re-awaken sometimes).

[rf] These ~two are just different instances of nested structured~duality.    If your ~goal is to ~refute hard little atoms as being true physical reality, then I think you need to drill down to the NSD/pattern level. But once you do, or the herd does, we are all still right ~here  needing to make changes to the scientific paradigm.  

You must write and prove what you say. 

Going from cube to tetrahedral might have some importance, and be a change in chemistry, but I do not see a change of paradigm in metaphysics.

[rf] I'm going to bet you say that because you haven't tried it.  Going from point-line-plane to tetrahedron as a starting point, to me, seems significant and metaphysical.

You must show this.

 

I intervened only because you seemed to believe your theory or hunch is contradictory to mechanism, and I did not see why.

[rf] Thank you.  I think my complaint is with the proposed substitution.  You may advertise it as "equivalent", but my impression is all outcomes of your tests will be uncertain or indeterminant -- if that's the right term. 

Yes, it is indeterminate in case of self-duplication, and if not, it is the usual indeterminate life, as testable empirically, and QM confirms.

~You certainly will get other instances of nested structured~duality.    But, as outlined above, I think we have some system-wide, cross-domain,  tetrahedral (sp^3) relationships which manifest as interactive hydrogen-bonding packets.   Maybe you can program devices to emulate or do programmed associative look-ups, but I am not grasping how generating new universal numbers relates to surviving or supporting cwb organisms surviving and supporting robust ecological networks.   The fundamental transaction/pattern is missing or absent in your device. 

Indeed. We cannot assume it without becoming inconsistent. This is utterly amazing, but then it is proven, but admittedly counter-intuitive.

We might try to use this to refute mechanism, but the logic of machine’s observable already justifies the logical structure of quantum mechanics, and the existence and importance of many symmetries, so that task does not seem easy. In fact, those who want mechanism false have to hope for a discrepancy between the physics “in the head of the universal machine/number” and the physics observed, but up to now, our “degree of non computationalism” has been shown null.

 

If I am tracking on what  you are saying, you are still talking about  people or machines still replicating, say, ~silicon semi-conductor physical devices, so you mostly  are proposing hardware swaps which, IMO,  still validate/perpetuate the existence of the 'body'/physical reality as a definite part of the gameboard, and thus  is ~just a translation or obfuscation, rather than an actual  solution to the 'mind-body problem’.

It is used to reformulate the mind-body problem (intuitively, like with the Universal dovetailer paradox) and mathematically, in arithmetic, where the mind-body problem enforce the derivation of the physical appearance from 

The solution of that problem are the logics S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. If they deflect from the physical reality, we get a reason to doubt mechanism.

[rf] If you ran such a program back in 1845 AD and it output a prediction for  relativity and QED, would those be considered a deflection from physical reality?  Who is doing the assessments and the judging?

You are right. Even in the 20th century, as sex cognitive scientist knew about QM, most considered that the consequences of mechanism was not in favour, and at that time, I did believe in “textbook QM (with collapse)”. Only by reading Everett did I realise that QM is actually confirming Mechanism. In fact, if physics was classical, Mechanism would be considered refuted. Only Nature judge, and we can be wrong because we don’t look at it closely enough.

(I say 'just', but  you're talking about using math/logic to create different types of vibrational systems which likely will have many good uses. I just don't see how translating or replicating it in other hardware "solves" the mind-body problem.)

That is just the step 0. You need to understand the step 2 and 3 (of the sane04 paper). We start from the mechanist assumption, and derive that physics has to be given by the logic above. 

My impression, or intuition, on this storyline is there may be some latent anger or hostility embedded in  toward  the carbon-water-based systems.  Life is hard.

I love carbon and I come from there. I discovered the universal machine in bacteria, and then in arithmetic.

[rf] Seems to me you encountered nested structural coding and an awareness of nested structured~duality but lacked the vocabulary. 

Then You might try to explain what it is with a vocabulary that I can understand. You lost me when saying it is primitive.

But you are right, in the big picture, the “natural reality” is still only an aspect of the “cosmic consciousness”, a sort of illusion.

But it gives many rooms, also, and it does demolish the reductionist dogmatic theories. The distinction truth proof plays a crucial role here.

[rf] Can you explain more?

The universal machines are not just incomplete, they are aware of their incompleteness, and they are aware that their soul is not a machine. Here “soul” is defined by the “knower”, which is defined using the classical definition given by Theaetetus. Socrates refuted it, but incompleteness makes Socrates refutation not valid.  Machines knows that truth is *far* bigger than what they can rationally justifies. There is a surrational corona in between rational and irrational. The true but non provable propositions (by the machine under consideration).

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Yes, that is the idea. Now, what would you predict if you are reconstituted physically in two places?

That is the next question. It can be shocking, but with the digital mechanist assumption we are duplicable (even if our level is sub-quantum, that does not violate the non-cloning theorem, actually that will entail it, later …).

[rf]  Predict?  My overall impression here sometimes is that you are trying to come up with a logic/math rationalization,

I jus derive consequences from system of beliefs. I show that the universal machine is closer to Plato than to Aristotle, and that we can make the test. 

[rf] Do your tests all have ~physical manifestations?

Well, surely. If not that would not be a test. Not all have been realised though. All the tests description can be generated by a program, but once they become complex, the program is untractable, and … that is a good news, because it reflects the quantum-like complexity. It would have been tractable, that would have refuted computationalism all by itself.

   If so, then it seems to me what you are verifying/testing is reality is nested structured~duality.

Yes, but arithmetic is the most nested structure I can conceive, and it is full of dualities, but none of those thing are “primitive”. They emerge from the laws of succession, addition and multiplication.

perhaps for astral travel/oobe/~paranormal experiences you personally  have already had, imagined, or read about. And, perhaps you are less comfortable admitting, "Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand.

"Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand”. Yes! That is my position, and that is why I make clear the hypothesis and then reason.

You are the one talking like you knew that a machine cannot incarnate a soul. Where does that idea come from? 

[rf] No doubt, Protestant Biblical verses -- but, hey, formed from clay -- mostly silicon.... ,  and from impressions gained from reading "Magnus, the Robot Killer".   I presently think I, and I project, people have quite a bit of remediation and development work on their own souls before implementing their misshapened  impressions in silicon.    

Well, if mechanism is correct, they can do the remediation after the transplantation of the brain as well, assuming of course that the doctor has chosen the right substitution level, of course.

There are many features in this human life and existence that are incomprehensible and can only be approximated or survived through faith.”

Exactly! The amazing thing is that the universal machine in arithmetic, and thus here and now in some sense, already utter similar things.

[rf] Perhaps you have found your Savior? 

May be, but I think I found only its main babies: the universal numbers.

The origin of dimension is still a complex unsolved problem. It will benefit by the already done work on the small dimensional topological spaces, and I guess mainly from knot theory. I hope we will be able to extract the role of 3 and 4 dimension from some Temperley-Lieb knot-theoretical algebra which seems to appear in the formal physical apparatus of the machine’s observable, but alas, this leads to difficult mathematics (homology and cohomology, quantum group theory, etc.). I guess it is for the next generation, and probably even the next next one ...

  It seems to me like you stack the deck in your favor, starting out with a handful of math-logic tenets and  then seeming to allow that these same initial conditions will spilt and diverge?

That is how science proceeds. We build theory, keep the simpler which explains most facts, and abandon them if refuted. In our case, we get a way to measure our degree of non-mechanism. Until now, the result is zero, but of course we need to keep verifying.

 

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

[rf]  By "if mechanism is true", do you mean as in the Google definition of parts or living organisms lacking intrinsic relationships with other parts?

I would say yes, but this formulation is a bit ambiguous. The relationship are more intrinsic than the part itself. You would be “run” by the clock-like (with wheels and gears) universal Babbage machine, or by a quantum computer, without external clue, you would not seen the difference. It is the “program(s)” which count, not the precise physical machine that you are using. Eventually, you are in arithmetic, in very long and deep histories, obeying a quantum logic which is the normal logic of arithmetic when observed from inside. 

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

Compare the logic of []p & <>t, with p sigma_1, and the quantum logic(s). Up to now, it matches, and it explains both qualia and quanta, without adding any magic neither in matter, nor in mind, nor in god(s).

[rf]  I think you mean "neither in matter nor in math".   Other add-ons and associations are of your own making. 

You have stop the formulation of the problem. You need to read the other steps to understand.

[rf] Have you hit a halting point?  

?

Step 8 is the halting step. Before we translate the whole argument in the universal language of a universal number, to make the argument constructive and derive the physics. That is done, a bit too much concisely probably, in the second part of the sane04 paper (the interview of the universal machine).

I observe what I am doing more as reading what you express about arithmetic/logic and thinking/swapping in """oh, you mean, nested structural coding in place of "arithmetic/logic".""", since you and I (and other readers) are all running our own instances of nested structural coding to track on the description. 

Such nesting appears as emergent structural features. I would say. It seems to me.

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

<div

[rf] Truncation encountered….

OK. Best,

Bruno

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/d48fa905-1e77-4385-925e-f72eb6d07713%40googlegroups.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and insights. I somewhat grasp the idea that from your perspective, I would ~require or accept a substitution level ~below sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding. However, I still have an impression that the instance of nested structured~duality   that you are working with in your mechanism/substitution storyline involves assumptions about numbers and arithmetic as ~fundamentals which actually are not correct or true, or true enough to support your proposals.

This certainly could be my abstract math-ignorance biases showing, but my impression is numbers and number theories are like a type of specialized, relational  language which is very handy for approximating sustenance needs.  As well, ALL of the numerical relations present in nature, from my perspective or in my opinion, are 100% entangled with and arise from ~physical arrangements.  That is, like particle-wave, numbers can not be peeled away into an idealized separate 'numbers' realm or category -- separated from the artifacts they associate with or relate to.

People certainly do it, and to great advantage, but this ability is a feature of reality being nested structured~duality   and where people can create instances of nested structured~duality  even to the extremes.

ymmv (your mileage may vary), on this notion.   

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 11 Feb 2018, at 13:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Bruno, 

What Google says about "mechanism philosophy"  is  """Mechanism is the belief that natural wholes (principally living things) are like complicated machines or artifacts, composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other. Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts or an external influence on the parts. “""

That is not too bad.Of course “natural wholes” is a bit vague, but the idea is there. The essence of being a machine, or having a body being a machine, is that we can be fixed though substitution of parts. 

Biology has always been my source of inspiration for mechanism, as biological bodies replace their constituents all the time. Few atoms last for more than seven years in the body, according to some sources. 

[rf] You see it as "relace their parts",  I see it as "sustain structure" or "sustain nested structured~duality",  0r 'sustain structural-energetics", which, I suppose, has more of a relational flare.   Also, there is the difference, I think, in biological organisms where organisms are running a synergetic transformation of  both "replacing parts" AND "collecting energy". That is, in the process of collecting energy, in our aerobic biological case, here on the flip-side of photosynthesis, ~we necessarily have a complementary ~flow of replacement parts, and, in my storyline, as we also sustain an internal structurally coded representation (approximation) of relevant features of surroundings.

Machine mechanism, OTOH,  I see as focused on replacing worn mechanisms while separately locating/ acquiring  charged batteries.    So the two functions are both non-integrated replacements. The two are different.

Is that the storyline you assume when you say you "assume mechanism”? 

Yes. 

It is one instance of nested structured~duality.  

Can you give me an instance of something which is not a nested structured-duality, and explain why? Sometimes it looks you apply the term to thing, but here you apply it to a believe and I fell lost in my attempt to grasp what you mean.

[rf] First, I do apply it to "things" and "beliefs" because I understand it as the common denominator supporting and/or making up ~physical and ~mental artifacts and attributes.   For your benefit, I suppose I need to try to communicate that I ~roughly consider  your storyline as an instance of nested structured~duality, where arithmetic and logic are types of languages and/or codings involving one or more structures and 'dualities' (like true-false, proveable-unproveable, knowable-unknowable). You may more likely think of numbers and arithmetic... as fundamental, perhaps as "below" or defining, or supporting nested structured~duality.   

I apply this term to "beliefs" because, like in our individual cases, we each have expended energy to repetitively structurally code our experience, I am saying, within our ~physical/structural being -- for instance, in carbon-water-based. I presume you do too, if you propose to scan/download and upload "yourself" into your substituited device.

As for something  that is "not nested structured~duality",  generally, I don't have instances.  Do you?Vaguely,  I think I exclude "God" and/or ~spiritual beliefs. The principle is just an approximation that holds on the scientific side for both the ~physical and the ~mental artifacts and attributes.  That is enough, or adequate to support the current scientific paradigm transition since the difficulty is in the scientific level of organization. 

From my angle (particularly considering carbon-water-based (cwb) living things), I am observing that the parts DO have intrinsic relationships at several levels and in one in particular, at the (~tetrahedral) sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level. 

If that is intrinsic, it means it cannot be Turing emulated. That seems highly speculative. Normally sp^3 bonding, and everything in quantum mechanics is known to be Turing emulable, even quantum computers.

[rf] I likely could be mis-using "intrinsic".  The imagery I have in mind is the sp^3 structured~dualities are "in me", and in the food I eat, and the the enfolding environment. So, it's rather broadly integrated throughout multiple interactive systems.    

I read in my Organic Chemistry book (Morrison and Boyd 197x) that quantum mechanics calculates or accurately matches with the sp^3 hybridized  pattern.   However, how I think,  the pattern already existed within our carbon-water-based make-up, including that used by the folks developing quantum mechanical notions and mathematics. So, the pattern seems to me to be intrinsic within our make-up.  Similarly, the mostly tetrahedral cwb analog structural coding that we have come to label as "sp^3 hybridized..." creates all the math relations, including the Turing/Godel/Marchal notions.  So, minimally, we're looking at a nested system.

Also, I  consider aerobic organisms have  interrelationships with photosynthesizers and many other ecological partners.   So, in my instance of NSD, I ~see there are several levels of common interrelationships between the so-called "parts", so, to me  the wholes do have, or can have roles in activities, in contrast to what I think the above definition of "mechanism" specifies. 

With Mechanism, the whole is also bigger than the parts. The relation between the parts are more than the parts. Then the math shows that the “whole” of a universal machine is unboundedly more complex that the parts. 

[rf]  Interchangeable parts are a great development.  A lever and a fulcrum, when used right, is MUCH more than a rock and a log. Does your mechanism have synergetic and enzymatic features, and metabolic?

This also coincided with living things perhaps being somewhat like, but also different from machines.   If I am reading and interpreting that definition properly.

Of course, in assuming, asserting, considering, believing... that  reality is nested structured~duality,  including our various paradigms and trial theories, etc., I understand that the underlying principle supports Plato's and Aristotle's and others instances of NSD and also supports mechanism(s) and its alternatives and competitors, whatever they may be. That is, I suppose I stack the deck with the recognition of  the intrinsic relationship between the various levels and instances of reality.

Ah! OK. Then what you do is like choosing a low substitution level. You would survive if the computer in your skull implements correctly all sp^3 bondings.

Yes, I think that the level is very plausibly that low.

[rf] That is sort of an interesting thought and it helps me to ~see what you are or may ber driving at,  but I am still skeptical because I observe the sp^3 patterns extend way out into the enfolding environment.  Plus, I ~see that it is doing synergetic transactions -- getting components  while getting energy and sustaining an internal representation, all riding along on the carbon-water-based patterns.  So, you suggest just doing the substitution within my skull, but in the cwb implementation it is providing fluids and pressures into various other extra-cranial systems. 

I also suppose since there is one or more  "apparent regular mechanisms" in NSD (for instance: "1) pick a structure; 2) pick one or more dualities/differences; 3) build outward to the limits of those initial conditions") I am also a fan of regular mechanisms.

As for the type of mechanism that you favor, or describe as open or amenable to testing through logical and arithmetic means,  I am still unclear on what you mean and what you are driving at.   I can partly imagine a scifi notion of evolving to or invoking  silicon replicas so as to potentially be able to stay in stasis until arriving at another exoplanet,  but that seems a bit overly escapist rather than sitting with and addressing challenges that we face in our current  manifestation. 

The “science-fiction” is just a way to explain to the layman what needs a lot of math for the experts to swallow the consequences. 

I'm skeptical on the "substitution" and if it is predicated on the above assumption of mechanism,  I don't see how it works out as "equivalent" since living things are somewhat different from machines and various parts share intrinsic relations with other parts.   

All machines looking at their body/environment, *have to see* much more than what is relevant for the consciousness to manifest itself. This comes from the 1p indeterminacy (step 3 of the UDA, sane04).

[rf]  I think I have a different model for generating  the internal analog representation of surroundings which is, like, integrated within the process of living. Your notion seems to be to just  calculate numbers from numbers in a dissociated way , separated from life and living.

...more below, some parts snipped...

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:02:55 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2018, at 16:53, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 3 Feb 2018, at 08:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

Look for the math note at the end...

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

My goal is not in defending Mechanism or the theology of the machine. My goal is to compare them to modern physics, the Veda, the Yogavasistha, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the smoker of salvia, etc. 

I try just to understand what is happening.

[rf] Me, too.  Toward that end, can you please  define/describe Mechanism or the theology of the machine?  Could you please describe and exemplify "mechanism" and also more generally about the test you propose and what the different outcomes would signify and/or lead to?

With either thought experience, based on a passive understanding of how a computer work, or with the mathematical definition, I can explain that if we assume mechanism then the physical appearance can no more be explained by the assumption of a physical universe. The appearance of the physical universe must be explained by a statistics related to the set of all computations, or more exactly, from a relative statistic.

The observable with measure one, with that statistic, will give the core logical structure obeyed by the physical appearances. That one can be derived mathematically, and has been derived mathematically, so we can compare it to the empirical observable, and it fits well. 

[rf] FWIW, I think your method or approach needs to scribble out dimensionful structure as well as logical. 

You are right. 

[rf] What assumptions do you need to add to get it to do that?

[rf] I think the relevant term is symbiosis, or perhaps cooperative symbiosis.  Maybe synergistic effects. In my storyline, we get components, energy flow, representation of surroundings and redirect carbon dioxide back to our photosynthetics partners, all from respiring. As well,  we get  a representation of surroundings as a sidebar of getting energy in respiration. So it's helpful, but sort of completely disconnected or separate (although integrated) which is akin  to "action at a distance"  --- wave function collapse.

Of course, with mechanism, once you learn that all computations are emulated (in a block-universe or block-mind sort of way) in arithmetic, it is natural to expect a “many-world” aspect of the physical reality, given that physics has to be retrieved from a statistics on first person plural experiences. Everett confirms Mechanism, thanks to Gödel (!).

[rf] The many worlds story may be a symptom that arises when considering a nested system through a non-nested lens. 

So my hypothesis is very weak, and virtually believed by all scientists, which makes them sanely sceptic with the result: which is that the notion of primary physical reality stop making sense, and indeed the ultimate realty becomes the (sigma_1, semi-computable) arithmetical reality, and the physical and psychological realties emerges from that. It makes also this weak form of Mechanism testable, and that to QM, we get confirmation.

[rf] Where did you get the idea of  "primary physical reality"? Is that your complaint about inheritances from Aristotle?

It is a very natural hypothesis in metaphysics, made by Aristotle. But I do not complain about any hypothesis.

My complain is only about its invalid misuse in the philosophy of mind/theology/cognitive science. It begins in Aristotle, but the refutation of Aristotle was already in the Parmenides (but that would be long to explain, and is certainly debatable).

Of course, I complain of any dogma, in any domain (except the military, where we made ourself into less than a universal machine, in a spirit to save those we care about, in urgent situation …).

Materialism, in the weak sense of the doctrine that some irreducibly token of matter would exist, and need to be assumed in some theory of everything, has been a dogma for some institutionalised religion, and, science has been separated from religion, artificially, opting the door to the charlatans and those doing money based on lies.

Now, I only provide a tool to test materialism OR mechanism. But QM (without collapse) is confirming Mechanism, even its most startling shocking feature like the many-histories and the non booleanity of the observable.

[rf] Does non-booleanity mean or refer to "multiple states", as in greater than  2^n?      Again, if you  look at these various philosophical categories, hopefully, by now you can notice they are all different instances of nested structured~duality. Some taken to extremes -- all physical; all non-material; etc.  

The fact is reality is nested structured~duality, and virtually all scientists act and believe and cipher in line with this fact and yet they are unaware of the fact as the underlying general principle.  If you can scribble out the proof in arithmetic and logic, that would be an accomplishment, but they can also just observe it via the analog math or just by shifting their awareness slightly -- today. 

I think I see what you mean, but that is not a “scientific theory”. It is a deep aspect of reality, but unless you can explain it in first or second order logic, it will look like a sequence of arbitrary word.

[rf] What is it that you think you see what I mean?   

Also, the way I ~see things, I am proposing different tenets in our scientific model of reality. The model is approximate, of course,  but notice  that the task is to revise the scientific paradigm so one  (new) set of tenets accounts for  the ~physical artifacts and features AND the ~mental artifacts and attributes in the same model.    So, the emerging  paradigm is up against  the dominant one assuming 'space, time, mass, energy, or curvy space-time and sets of multiple states' for ~physical stuff, AND subjectivity-objectivity plus various rules for the ~mental stuff.    Are there 1st and 2nd order logical explanations for 'space'  or 'energy'?   

I think this paradigm mechanics developments sometimes DO go along  in the Faraday motif. What is is?  A final cause creates a new beachhead or shore, and then subsequently, decades later, formalisms develop after people gain experience with the new model. 

And with me you are a bit unlucky, because to explain your “theory” (if you want it as a theory) to me, you have to succeed in explaining to any arbitrary (but Löbian) Universal Machine.

[rf] Not that unlucky.    You are starting to catch on.

[rf] It is intuitively obvious. 

I intervened only because you seemed to believe your theory or hunch is contradictory to mechanism, and I did not see why.

[rf] Thank you.  I think my complaint is with the proposed substitution.  You may advertise it as "equivalent", but my impression is all outcomes of your tests will be uncertain or indeterminant -- if that's the right term. 

Yes, it is indeterminate in case of self-duplication, and if not, it is the usual indeterminate life, as testable empirically, and QM confirms.

~You certainly will get other instances of nested structured~duality.    But, as outlined above, I think we have some system-wide, cross-domain,  tetrahedral (sp^3) relationships which manifest as interactive hydrogen-bonding packets.   Maybe you can program devices to emulate or do programmed associative look-ups, but I am not grasping how generating new universal numbers relates to surviving or supporting cwb organisms surviving and supporting robust ecological networks.   The fundamental transaction/pattern is missing or absent in your device. 

Indeed. We cannot assume it without becoming inconsistent. This is utterly amazing, but then it is proven, but admittedly counter-intuitive.

We might try to use this to refute mechanism, but the logic of machine’s observable already justifies the logical structure of quantum mechanics, and the existence and importance of many symmetries, so that task does not seem easy. In fact, those who want mechanism false have to hope for a discrepancy between the physics “in the head of the universal machine/number” and the physics observed, but up to now, our “degree of non computationalism” has been shown null.

[rf]  I don't get why you think it is surprising that you "get"  QM like patterns just from arithmetic.  I mean, dial back on arithmetic and you find increments and counting increments. Same story, different day. They are both founded in increments so there is no big surprise  -- in my uneducated opinion. 

If I am tracking on what  you are saying, you are still talking about  people or machines still replicating, say, ~silicon semi-conductor physical devices, so you mostly  are proposing hardware swaps which, IMO,  still validate/perpetuate the existence of the 'body'/physical reality as a definite part of the gameboard, and thus  is ~just a translation or obfuscation, rather than an actual  solution to the 'mind-body problem’.

It is used to reformulate the mind-body problem (intuitively, like with the Universal dovetailer paradox) and mathematically, in arithmetic, where the mind-body problem enforce the derivation of the physical appearance from 

The solution of that problem are the logics S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. If they deflect from the physical reality, we get a reason to doubt mechanism.

[rf] If you ran such a program back in 1845 AD and it output a prediction for  relativity and QED, would those be considered a deflection from physical reality?  Who is doing the assessments and the judging?

You are right. Even in the 20th century, as sex cognitive scientist knew about QM, most considered that the consequences of mechanism was not in favour, and at that time, I did believe in “textbook QM (with collapse)”. Only by reading Everett did I realise that QM is actually confirming Mechanism. In fact, if physics was classical, Mechanism would be considered refuted. Only Nature judge, and we can be wrong because we don’t look at it closely enough.

[rf] And/or we have a skewed understandinf of nested structured~duality  (aka, reality). 

(I say 'just', but  you're talking about using math/logic to create different types of vibrational systems which likely will have many good uses. I just don't see how translating or replicating it in other hardware "solves" the mind-body problem.)

That is just the step 0. You need to understand the step 2 and 3 (of the sane04 paper). We start from the mechanist assumption, and derive that physics has to be given by the logic above. 

My impression, or intuition, on this storyline is there may be some latent anger or hostility embedded in  toward  the carbon-water-based systems.  Life is hard.

I love carbon and I come from there. I discovered the universal machine in bacteria, and then in arithmetic.

[rf] Seems to me you encountered nested structural coding and an awareness of nested structured~duality but lacked the vocabulary. 

Then You might try to explain what it is with a vocabulary that I can understand. You lost me when saying it is primitive.

[rf] Sorry.  Perhaps the term is fundamental, as in like a fundamental tenet in a paradigm.

But you are right, in the big picture, the “natural reality” is still only an aspect of the “cosmic consciousness”, a sort of illusion.

But it gives many rooms, also, and it does demolish the reductionist dogmatic theories. The distinction truth proof plays a crucial role here.

[rf] Can you explain more?

The universal machines are not just incomplete, they are aware of their incompleteness, and they are aware that their soul is not a machine. Here “soul” is defined by the “knower”, which is defined using the classical definition given by Theaetetus. Socrates refuted it, but incompleteness makes Socrates refutation not valid.  Machines knows that truth is *far* bigger than what they can rationally justifies. There is a surrational corona in between rational and irrational. The true but non provable propositions (by the machine under consideration).

[rf]  That may sound crystal clear to you, but not to me. I sort of walk away thinking, """Oh, you are driving at some idealized accurate truth or proof, whereas my impression is the best we are going to have is various approximations  -- perhaps along the lines of Donald Hoffman's "fitness function" --  things which have utilitity but not so much "truth"."""

I'd be in favor of the teleportation devices, and can relate, somewhat, to stepping into the Hypar Converter and being "beamed out", but that tech still depends on the Beam being received by a compatible living, physical organism, (as best I can surmise).

Yes, that is the idea. Now, what would you predict if you are reconstituted physically in two places?

That is the next question. It can be shocking, but with the digital mechanist assumption we are duplicable (even if our level is sub-quantum, that does not violate the non-cloning theorem, actually that will entail it, later …).

[rf]  Predict?  My overall impression here sometimes is that you are trying to come up with a logic/math rationalization,

I jus derive consequences from system of beliefs. I show that the universal machine is closer to Plato than to Aristotle, and that we can make the test. 

[rf] Do your tests all have ~physical manifestations?

Well, surely. If not that would not be a test. Not all have been realised though. All the tests description can be generated by a program, but once they become complex, the program is untractable, and … that is a good news, because it reflects the quantum-like complexity. It would have been tractable, that would have refuted computationalism all by itself.

   If so, then it seems to me what you are verifying/testing is reality is nested structured~duality.

Yes, but arithmetic is the most nested structure I can conceive, and it is full of dualities, but none of those thing are “primitive”. They emerge from the laws of succession, addition and multiplication.

[rf] Yes, but the overall package you are running is an instance of nested structured~duality. 

perhaps for astral travel/oobe/~paranormal experiences you personally  have already had, imagined, or read about. And, perhaps you are less comfortable admitting, "Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand.

"Lordy, lordy,  I just do not know or understand”. Yes! That is my position, and that is why I make clear the hypothesis and then reason.

You are the one talking like you knew that a machine cannot incarnate a soul. Where does that idea come from? 

[rf] No doubt, Protestant Biblical verses -- but, hey, formed from clay -- mostly silicon.... ,  and from impressions gained from reading "Magnus, the Robot Killer".   I presently think I, and I project, people have quite a bit of remediation and development work on their own souls before implementing their misshapened  impressions in silicon.    

Well, if mechanism is correct, they can do the remediation after the transplantation of the brain as well, assuming of course that the doctor has chosen the right substitution level, of course.

here are many features in this human life and existence that are incomprehensible and can only be approximated or survived through faith.”

[rf]  Or, again,  tetrahedron  as start point rather than point-line-plane. 

  It seems to me like you stack the deck in your favor, starting out with a handful of math-logic tenets and  then seeming to allow that these same initial conditions will spilt and diverge?

That is how science proceeds. We build theory, keep the simpler which explains most facts, and abandon them if refuted. In our case, we get a way to measure our degree of non-mechanism. Until now, the result is zero, but of course we need to keep verifying.

 

IF AR is refuted one day; then all theories are refuted, as AR is used in all exact and human sciences everyday. 

[rf]  Sounds like a case like  continuing to use Newtonian gravitation.  Generally speaking, we are largely  approximating and rounding up or down, relying on the numbers for a sense of "Is there enough?" -- for effective physical intuition.   To help us understand more about reality.  You have special skills and abilities, though and that is a good thing.  But the specific outcomes, though, are still influenced by the limits and contraints you impose, or remove.  

On the contrary, if mechanism is true, we become more free from the body, and this eve in the terrestrial plane. We can change of body, etc. 

[rf]  By "if mechanism is true", do you mean as in the Google definition of parts or living organisms lacking intrinsic relationships with other parts?

I would say yes, but this formulation is a bit ambiguous. The relationship are more intrinsic than the part itself. You would be “run” by the clock-like (with wheels and gears) universal Babbage machine, or by a quantum computer, without external clue, you would not seen the difference. It is the “program(s)” which count, not the precise physical machine that you are using. Eventually, you are in arithmetic, in very long and deep histories, obeying a quantum logic which is the normal logic of arithmetic when observed from inside. 

[rf] Within certain assumptions about life, maybe. But biological organism is running synergetic cooperative enzymatic symbiosis. Plus, organisms "metabolize the Turing instructions tape" -- they are not machines.

If there is a digital substitution level, the digital brain is no more an approximation, by definition. The body is truncated, but the soul survives.

[rf] What's the test or proof for that, even now? 

Compare the logic of []p & <>t, with p sigma_1, and the quantum logic(s). Up to now, it matches, and it explains both qualia and quanta, without adding any magic neither in matter, nor in mind, nor in god(s).

[rf]  I think you mean "neither in matter nor in math".   Other add-ons and associations are of your own making. 

You have stop the formulation of the problem. You need to read the other steps to understand.

[rf] Have you hit a halting point?  ?

Step 8 is the halting step. Before we translate the whole argument in the universal language of a universal number, to make the argument constructive and derive the physics. That is done, a bit too much concisely probably, in the second part of the sane04 paper (the interview of the universal machine).

I observe what I am doing more as reading what you express about arithmetic/logic and thinking/swapping in """oh, you mean, nested structural coding in place of "arithmetic/logic".""", since you and I (and other readers) are all running our own instances of nested structural coding to track on the description. 

Such nesting appears as emergent structural features. I would say. It seems to me.

[rf] Not just structural, but also structured~duality variations, in our case, cast in ordered water, also in enzymatics, also in genetics. 

And in the long run, that is how we will expand in the Solar system and tin he Milky Way, and beyond. Numbers can flight at the speed of light, and needs only a tiny bit of energy on the terrestrial plane.

[rf] So, a different species inhabiting a different niche in ecology? A conversion, not a replication.  We could do away with ALL symbiotic relations and sterilize our relations with microbial partners. 

<div

[rf] Truncation encountered….

Best regards, 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Feb 2018, at 04:21, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and insights. I somewhat grasp the idea that from your perspective, I would ~require or accept a substitution level ~below sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding.

From the perspective of Mechanism, yes. That would follow from other hypothesis, including physical assumption or not. 

Some real number are not computable, you always add a non computable element to Shcroedinger equation, or quicker in the wave e^iHt, by using a H based on a non computable number. Amazingly perhaps, such modification does not change the physical appearances. If you change the linearity: the appearances will change drastically (both just with mechanism and QM-(without collapse).

Some might doubt your sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding level (of substitution) and requires the much more expensive strings-branes level, and with 10^(10^100) decimals accurate, and this for the local cluster of galaxies.

Now, a curious facts is that the natural numbers, just in virtue of their true arithmetical relations do mimic those approximations, at all levels allowing a digitalisation, and indeed, the “real experience” is not obtained by any-one emulations of those approximations, but by the infinitely many one realised in virtue of 2+2=4 & Co.

However, I still have an impression that the instance of nested structured~duality   that you are working with in your mechanism/substitution storyline involves assumptions about numbers and arithmetic as ~fundamentals which actually are not correct or true, or true enough to support your proposals.

If you take the time to study the details, you should understand that I start from the Digital Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science, and deduce from that that arithmetic is enough. Elementary arithmetic is sufficient and necessary, although you can effectively start from any universal machinery. Technically, with my students, I start from many different universal machinery, to avoid the idolatry of any of them. 

This certainly could be my abstract math-ignorance biases showing, but my impression is numbers and number theories are like a type of specialized, relational  language which is very handy for approximating sustenance needs. 

Before Gödel we thought we could secure the Infinite, used in analysis, set theories, algebra, physics, by solid constructions using only (finite) numbers.

After Gödel we realize that we have to use the help of the infinite to keep calm and control of the number themselves.

The pythagorean heaven is full of storms, turbulence, unbounded complexity and unbounded degrees of unsolvability.

Analysis, and somehow physics are simplifications of the number reality. A sort of projective view of arithmetic as seen from inside, and from an 1p view.

As well, ALL of the numerical relations present in nature, from my perspective or in my opinion, are 100% entangled with and arise from ~physical arrangements. 

You have of course the right to assume this, but usually the numbers are conceived in a much easier and precise way, not involving physics, but involving some laws of thought (logic) we can agree on that subject, like with the Robinson axioms I gave you already.

One of my goal is to understand the term physical from simpler things that I can conceive, and the computationalist hypothesis provides an opportunity to test a theory which explains the physical appearances without assuming a physical universe.

That is, like particle-wave, numbers can not be peeled away into an idealized separate 'numbers' realm or category -- separated from the artifacts they associate with or relate to.

That is true, but the “causality” or “explainability” is simpler from going to natural numbers to their beautiful dreams and nightmares, than to go from anything extracted from the appearances, except repeatability itself, to explain the numbers. In my opinion.

People certainly do it, and to great advantage, but this ability is a feature of reality

Which one? At some point, any serious metaphysics must provides its theory in a universally accepted language, which means in either first order logic, or interpreted in a theory admitting itself an interpretation in first order or second order logic. 

And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).

being nested structured~duality   and where people can create instances of nested structured~duality  even to the extremes.

?

ymmv (your mileage may vary), on this notion.   

I am an extremely simple mind. “Nested structured-duality” means almost everything to me without adding some precision, especially once you said it is primitive. You lost me there.

I have to go. I might try to answer some point below, but be patient for possible delays. We might win some times if you study well the reasoning in 8 steps. I claim nothing but consequences of mechanism. Eventually, the physical science makes much more sense viewed as an internal projection in arithmetic. (Sometimes I guess that Number Theory will be the “winner”, but that is not necessarily the case. Yet it would happen if the prime numbers mimic, from the 1p we can associate to them (assuming a number of thing) a quantum computer, like it seems to mimic already a “quantum chaotic regime”. 

To be continued.

Best,

Bruno

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLeRAnGLmjEOncxVV56XpsDKf5RZAfrk5xdsn9w%2BhKTMtg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Dear Bruno, 

The Lobian machines are in agreement.  .-)

Where you write, """And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).""",  and Googling your breadcrumb of  "boolean topoi",   to get to another similarly named thread: https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262 ....

Roughly, if all boolean topoi are Lobian, then, since magnetic tetrahedron ~are a constructed  boolean topos,  you get (have given) the proof you say you and the other Lobians need.  

This carries over, on a good day according to my ~slipshod logic,  to nested structured~duality,   by virtue of   standard boolean labeling being considered as [true,false] where as the underlying [attraction,repulsion] is present in the formative, foundational  ~magnetic tetrahedral analog math.   Both are or reflect a similar or roughly equivalent (structured) duality, but use slightly different terms and conjure different but mostly equal concepts within the various linguistic communities.  

I would go out a little further on the thin ice to point out that  our human ability to assess true from false (particularly after eating from the tree of knowledge of  good and evil),  is highly over-rated. We greatly admire what is true, or claim to, yet ourselves and our surroundings are also deeply nested repulsive and attractive structures and generally, we cannot tell the difference between the two with great certainty. About the only absolute we can find is that repulsion is ~truly attraction with one-half spin (and vise versa).  Yet, we can observe and agree that, say, balanced attractive-repulsive units within a state, such as n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, are more stable and self-organizing than other states, and thus, both externally on the tabletop, and internally within similar (sp^3 hybridized) carbon-water-based units, will, to us (who are doing internal representations and assessments in the cwb units) always "make more sense" to us and/or will persist, as we like to call it, as "true", more so than units being unstable and "~false".  Considering attraction as love, and perhaps depending on one's faith, we also still find ourselves nested within one ~spin-structured attractive field.

Here, of course, I am winging it just based on the assumption or the *feel* that magnetic tetrahedra are boolean topoi and both are instances of nested structured~duality.  

I take these liberties, in part because of things I read on the Internet, for instance, "To a modern logician, a mathematical structure is precisely this: a set of abstract entities with relations between them." attributed to Max Tegmark in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ . 

Here he advocates picking a structure (set of abstract entities) and one or more  dualities (relations between them), which qualifies, close enough,  as constructing yet another instance of nested structured~duality.  

Similar connections are with notions of  Donald H. Hoffman as in  The Atlantic:  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/  

and with notions of Andy Clark   https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404  on Predictive coding and our uses of storing 'information', etc., in the structure of our bodies and in the environment.  

Considering these persons' perspectives,  along with noting the typical instances of "simple machines" in classical physics, vaguely, I may be beginning to see some sense developing in how it is that working through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states and also a feel for the pattern(s) in our make-up which allow us to bobble along, and survive  in the local variable mass-density.  

Again, call it a  non-classical simple machine, or a poor man's unified field ~equation and/or an initial (analog math) ~equation of quantum gravity, but there is some empirical validity that comes via  analog math expression that is simply not available, or not available/developed yet,  via the abstract math trade route.  

The first step is to establish physical intuition and spark creative imagination.

Thanks for your help.

Best regards, 

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

Focus on the breath.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Feb 2018, at 07:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

The Lobian machines are in agreement.  .-)

Where you write, """And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).""",  and Googling your breadcrumb of  "boolean topoi",   to get to another similarly named thread: https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262 ....

Roughly, if all boolean topoi are Lobian, then, since magnetic tetrahedron ~are a constructed  boolean topos,

Really? I would like to see the paiper which proves that, but to my ear it sounds very weird. I did not know that a magnetic tetrahedron was a category. Which one? 

  you get (have given) the proof you say you and the other Lobians need.  

This carries over, on a good day according to my ~slipshod logic,  to nested structured~duality,   by virtue of   standard boolean labeling being considered as [true,false] where as the underlying [attraction,repulsion] is present in the formative, foundational  ~magnetic tetrahedral analog math.   Both are or reflect a similar or roughly equivalent (structured) duality, but use slightly different terms and conjure different but mostly equal concepts within the various linguistic communities.  

I would go out a little further on the thin ice

You live dangerously, but to compare with the “machine’s interview”, you need to make things completely precise, and independent of the vocabulary used. You will need some amount of first order logic to do that.

to point out that  our human ability to assess true from false (particularly after eating from the tree of knowledge of  good and evil),  is highly over-rated. We greatly admire what is true, or claim to, yet ourselves and our surroundings are also deeply nested repulsive and attractive structures and generally, we cannot tell the difference between the two with great certainty. About the only absolute we can find is that repulsion is ~truly attraction with one-half spin (and vise versa).  Yet, we can observe and agree that, say, balanced attractive-repulsive units within a state, such as n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, are more stable and self-organizing than other states, and thus, both externally on the tabletop, and internally within similar (sp^3 hybridized) carbon-water-based units, will, to us (who are doing internal representations and assessments in the cwb units) always "make more sense" to us and/or will persist, as we like to call it, as "true", more so than units being unstable and "~false".  Considering attraction as love, and perhaps depending on one's faith, we also still find ourselves nested within one ~spin-structured attractive field.

This seems to assume physics, which is not possible in the mechanist context. Many things you say should be made more precise, and, derived from arithmetic, in case it is true.

Here, of course, I am winging it just based on the assumption or the *feel* that magnetic tetrahedra are boolean topoi and both are instances of nested structured~duality.  

There are important well known dualities there, like Stone duality, but I am not sure how to relate that with a magnetic tetrahedron.

I take these liberties, in part because of things I read on the Internet, for instance, "To a modern logician, a mathematical structure is precisely this: a set of abstract entities with relations between them." attributed to Max Tegmark in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ . 

Sometimes he got the math right, but of course he talk about some representation of mathematical structure. Indeed, they have invented the topi to escape the constraints of the topos of set. But with computationalism, even this must be extracted from the machine looking inward. 

Here he advocates picking a structure (set of abstract entities) and one or more  dualities (relations between them), which qualifies, close enough,  as constructing yet another instance of nested structured~duality.  

I am waiting you make this precise, testable, or I take them as hunch, but hunch about precise things lurks around the 1004 mistake: vague comment on to much precise concepts.

Similar connections are with notions of  Donald H. Hoffman as in  The Atlantic:  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/  

and with notions of Andy Clark   https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404  on Predictive coding and our uses of storing 'information', etc., in the structure of our bodies and in the environment.  

Considering these persons' perspectives,  along with noting the typical instances of "simple machines" in classical physics, vaguely, I may be beginning to see some sense developing in how it is that working through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states and also a feel for the pattern(s) in our make-up which allow us to bobble along, and survive  in the local variable mass-density.  

Again, call it a  non-classical simple machine, or a poor man's unified field ~equation and/or an initial (analog math) ~equation of quantum gravity, but there is some empirical validity that comes via  analog math expression that is simply not available, or not available/developed yet,  via the abstract math trade route.  

The first step is to establish physical intuition and spark creative imagination.

Thanks for your help.

I think you have a lot of work to do, I mean, if you hope to make this understandable for the others,

Kind regards,

Bruno

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/8609f7d0-aa19-4808-9077-c64253e850ff%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Vinod,

On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:43, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

The fundamentality of any numbers and their relations in the absence of any consciousness/minds and some discrete physicality is inconceivable and  prima facie an absurd proposition since

i) Numbers per se lack any ontology of their own. By ontology, I a mean some "substance" or “structure"

So you choose the Aristotelian ontology at the start. OK. Mechanism is then necessarily wrong. 

But I have never see an evidence for substance. And structure is a mathematical concept which can be defined, but it assumes much more than the numbers.

ii) All the arithmetic is a product of our assumptions as produced in our conscious minds.

That makes sense in your non-mechanist Aristotelian theory. I prefer to assume 2+2=4, which is far less speculative, and accepted by all scientists.

iii) In the absence of any discrete physical ontology, numbers lose any meaning.

Why? On the contrary, we can explain in all details why numbers brings meaning to their relation, by their highly sophisticated theology that they have already provided to us, even if it is throughout difficult math papers.

It is true that numbers are unique in the sense that they are equally applicable to the discrete ontology of any type  --  1 tree, 1 proton, 1 apple etc but it is also true that they should definitely pertain to some discrete ontology. 

Yes, the infinite set {0, 1, 2, 3, …}. The mind and the matter comes from their relations.

When a number 1 or a relation  1+1=2 arise in mind ( 1+1=2  is also a universal assumption produced in minds), immediately question arises as to the number 1 or relation 1+1 pertains to what? 1 tree or 1 apple or 1 protons.

“1+1=2” is produced in the mind, but that does not imply that 1+1 would be different from 2 is they were no mind.

Had there been no discrete object like a tree or apple or protons, number 1 would have also never taken birth in our consciousness/mind.  Without our consciousness/minds and discrete objects, number 1 or 2, number 2 could never have come into existence.

There is no proton, or hangs like that, except in our mind (our = us the Löbian number). It is easier to explain the illusion of the proton from mathematics and the mechanist theory of mind, than to explain what is a number in term of protons.

iv) So numbers automatically come into existence as part of some of our unique cognitive

capability when our conscious minds have an interface with the discrete physical ontology of any type. 

That is consistent with non-mechanism, but many tings are consistent then. That is the problem of non-mechanism. It explains too much things, and start from the very difficult things. 

This is on the similar lines that a poem burst out from the mind/heart of a poet when his conscious minds have an interface with some beautiful flower or a river or any other natural scene. But here there is the difference While poem arises in the conscious hearts/minds of only a selected few. Numbers arise universally in the minds of all and that too in the same manner. In this way, number is a  unique and universal  cognitive capability

I am glad you say this. 

v) Just image the existence of some says 10  trees in a jungle. Trees or jungle don't have any concept of 10 (trees) in itself. So there is no number 10 by itself. When a conscious observer passes thru the jungle that he  ( his consciosuness.conscious minds) has an interface with the trees that number 10 arises in his mind. There is all the likelihood that if the person is quite illiterate that number 10 may not come into existence at all.

OK. But the tree is what I want to derive from the numbers.

To say that number 10 existed even without 10 physical trees and conscious minds.consciousness is an absurd since for the existence of anything i) some ontological 'substance: is required

I don’t see why. I asked you before, but saying that a material ontology is needed is just an act of faith toward Aristotle, or dualist Sankia.

and numbers per se lack any ontological substance

With helps to explain that ontological substance exists only in the mind of the (Turing) universal numbers. You need to be aware that arithmetic contains all computations, and not just their description, but the true relations making them into computations.

ii) To authenticate or establish the existence of anything, consciousness/conscious minds are required  and numbers lack any consciousness.conscious minds.

I agree. But something can exist without being authenticate by a conscious being: example: the numbers. Even if the entire physical universe disappear (which makes no sense as it is a product of the number, but let us say) 1+1 is till equal to 2, even if we can no more torture the kids with them.

In view of above, the fundamentality of numbers without conscious minds and discrete physicality is logically ruled out.

Certainly not. They are rules out from the metaphysics of Aristotle only, but that is why I insist to come back to Plato. There are no evidence for a material ontology, only for a material phenomenology, and then with computationalism, the material phenomenology cannot assume primary matter, as that notion has no more meaning.

We are coherent Vinod. We just make quite different assumption. I assume that the brain functions like a machine, and you assume the contrary. But there will no conscious robot in your theory, because they will offer you my refutation, and it will be correct if you are willing to accept that they are conscious.

Bruno

Vinod Sehgal

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/8609f7d0-aa19-4808-9077-c64253e850ff%40googlegroups.com.

[Ralph Frost]

Bruno,

Some thoughts just on your brief reply and on Stone duality...

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:00:31 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Feb 2018, at 07:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

The Lobian machines are in agreement.  .-)

Where you write, """And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).""",  and Googling your breadcrumb of  "boolean topoi",   to get to another similarly named thread: https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262 ....

Roughly, if all boolean topoi are Lobian, then, since magnetic tetrahedron ~are a constructed  boolean topos,

Really? I would like to see the paiper which proves that, but to my ear it sounds very weird. I did not know that a magnetic tetrahedron was a category. Which one? 

[rf] Your criticisms may be correct, particularly with the specificity of definitions and rules within your linguistic community, however,  I am beginning to think that you have an extremely biased or closed view on mathematical structures and numbers.   

From my perspective, boolean topoi and magnetic tetrahedra are the same pattern; the same category, although no doubt I make this statement just from the physical intuition of the analog math in light of the similarity of the mathematical structures and terms.  Or, perhaps I should say, because nested structured~duality is the underlying (universal) pattern,  the magnetici tetrahedral analog math provides physical intuition on other ~universal mathematical structures and relationships.

But, you notice I employ different types of "numbers", appropriate to the task of conveying physical intuition, than you employ for your purposes.

  you get (have given) the proof you say you and the other Lobians need.  

This carries over, on a good day according to my ~slipshod logic,  to nested structured~duality,   by virtue of   standard boolean labeling being considered as [true,false] where as the underlying [attraction,repulsion] is present in the formative, foundational  ~magnetic tetrahedral analog math.   Both are or reflect a similar or roughly equivalent (structured) duality, but use slightly different terms and conjure different but mostly equal concepts within the various linguistic communities.  

I would go out a little further on the thin ice

You live dangerously, but to compare with the “machine’s interview”, you need to make things completely precise, and independent of the vocabulary used. You will need some amount of first order logic to do that.

[rf] Probably. However, try to imagine that your model and assumptions are incomplete.  Imagine that there is  another way. 

I point out that  our human ability to assess true from false (particularly after eating from the tree of knowledge of  good and evil),  is highly over-rated. We greatly admire what is true, or claim to, yet ourselves and our surroundings are also deeply nested repulsive and attractive structures and generally, we cannot tell the difference between the two with great certainty. About the only absolute we can find is that repulsion is ~truly attraction with one-half spin (and vise versa).  Yet, we can observe and agree that, say, balanced attractive-repulsive units within a state, such as n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, are more stable and self-organizing than other states, and thus, both externally on the tabletop, and internally within similar (sp^3 hybridized) carbon-water-based units, will, to us (who are doing internal representations and assessments in the cwb units) always "make more sense" to us and/or will persist, as we like to call it, as "true", more so than units being unstable and "~false".  Considering attraction as love, and perhaps depending on one's faith, we also still find ourselves nested within one ~spin-structured attractive field.

This seems to assume physics, which is not possible in the mechanist context. Many things you say should be made more precise, and, derived from arithmetic, in case it is true.

[rf] I admit leanings toward analog/physical but notice, in claiming reality is nested structured~duality,  I am also just pointing at four one-half-spin-able dualic increments in a tetrahedral structure.   Locally, there are just three patterns:   n4-s4, n3s-ns3, and n2s2. These don't expand to five patterns except upon referencing to the enfolding environment for a reference point (~ala, Andy Clark's notion), giving the five states:  n4,ns3,n2s2,ns3,s4 -- ~proving that some of our field knowledge is located in the enfolding environment.

But am I assuming physics, or have I just picked a structure and a duality and then observe and  experience attraction and attraction with one-half-spin (aka, repulsion)?  I understand I have just done the latter.  It is AFTER this rather autistic setup that the analog math then demonstrates and provides the physical intuition on various low level physics patterns.  

I vaguely understand that what I accomplish/observe occurring  in this universal analog math is somewhat like what you theorize or hypothesize being able to do with Turing devices doing an infinite or very high number of abstract math arithmetic steps.   I suppose your Turing devices might be able to stumble onto this shortcut if it/they introspected and noticed it/they and their surroundings were nested structured~duality  and then picked  tetrahedron for structure and 'magnets' for duality, and then built "it" and explored "it" etc., .     

But, how would the Turing device(s) 'know' to reference magnet poles in relation with the enfolding magnetic field so as to identify five states rather than  the three more entangled or dualic states? Or, is referencing against knowledge stored in the environment something that would need to be taught to the devices so as to hope to have it generate recognizable 'physics'?

Here, of course, I am winging it just based on the assumption or the *feel* that magnetic tetrahedra are boolean topoi and both are instances of nested structured~duality.  

There are important well known dualities there, like Stone duality, but I am not sure how to relate that with a magnetic tetrahedron.

[rf] Most likely, neither do I.   A guess woul;d be, back in the Boolean algebra where: """In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are numbers, and the prime operations are addition and multiplication, the main operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunction and denoted as ∧, the disjunction or denoted as ∨, and the negation not denoted as ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes numeric relations. """  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra   

in the tactile, internal  analog math,  the ~actual values are not "true" and "false" but are "attraction" and "repulsion", which, perhaps readers can envision as approximated via the Boolean algebra terms of  "conjunction", "disjunction" -- and maybe "negation".     That is,  Boolean algebra is sort of an abstraction of structured attractions-repulsions. 

In the """there is an ample supply of categorical dualities between certain categories of topological spaces and categories of partially ordered sets. Today, these dualities are usually collected under the label Stone duality, """, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_duality ---  you and other readers MAY observe that these Stone dualities arise  because  of folks having a pile of topological spaces (structures) and a separate pile of partially ordered sets (dualities), and then there being some abstract way to shuffle the two together into Stoner dualities.  

In regions and lands  where people understand reality is nested structured~duality, that is, where the model/reality is nested rather than non-nested,   and structures and dualities are NOT separate (aka, reality is nested structured~duality),  one picks a structure and a duality, essentially together, and builds outward from there.  

The associations with "language" arising in Googling "stone duality", hint at a common theme with the storyline I present about building a paradigm (language) by picking a structure and picking one or more dualities, and building outward from those initial conditions.   So, there seems to be  some type of kinship between NSD and Stone dualities, but apparently, the NSD expression is more compact or laconic.   

If it is possible that anyone catches this drift,  again, I would point back to the notion that  ~zero "magnetic field strength" structural elements (regular structures) would also belong  to the class or category of what I used to call bipolar polyhedral structures (BPS) by which I try to point at the idea that the various "states", maybe partially ordered sets, would ~be or could be considered to be  present even if zero bipolar strength.  That is, all structures are bipolar polyhedral structures and thus have multiple states as is shown in magnetic tetrahedron.  

I take these liberties, in part because of things I read on the Internet, for instance, "To a modern logician, a mathematical structure is precisely this: a set of abstract entities with relations between them." attributed to Max Tegmark in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ . 

Sometimes he got the math right, but of course he talk about some representation of mathematical structure. Indeed, they have invented the topi to escape the constraints of the topos of set. But with computationalism, even this must be extracted from the machine looking inward. 

[rf]  Aka, via setting up a different instance of nested structured~duality... 

Here he advocates picking a structure (set of abstract entities) and one or more  dualities (relations between them), which qualifies, close enough,  as constructing yet another instance of nested structured~duality.  

I am waiting you make this precise, testable, or I take them as hunch, but hunch about precise things lurks around the 1004 mistake: vague comment on to much precise concepts.

[rf] I'll try to post a video of the boring analog math soon. 

Similar connections are with notions of  Donald H. Hoffman as in  The Atlantic:  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/  

and with notions of Andy Clark   https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404  on Predictive coding and our uses of storing 'information', etc., in the structure of our bodies and in the environment.  

Considering these persons' perspectives,  along with noting the typical instances of "simple machines" in classical physics, vaguely, I may be beginning to see some sense developing in how it is that working through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states and also a feel for the pattern(s) in our make-up which allow us to bobble along, and survive  in the local variable mass-density.  

Again, call it a  non-classical simple machine, or a poor man's unified field ~equation and/or an initial (analog math) ~equation of quantum gravity, but there is some empirical validity that comes via  analog math expression that is simply not available, or not available/developed yet,  via the abstract math trade route.  

The first step is to establish physical intuition and spark creative imagination.

Thanks for your help.

I think you have a lot of work to do, I mean, if you hope to make this understandable for the others,

Kind regards,

Bruno

[rf] Are you meaning "abstract math/logic" work?       If so, don't hold your breath.   I think the effort is getting the empirical evidence out and then seeing if the universal model generates more instances or increments of physical intuition in more participants.

Time for bed, though.

Best regards, 

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

[..snip..]

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Feb 2018, at 20:24, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno,

Some thoughts just on your brief reply and on Stone duality...

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:00:31 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Feb 2018, at 07:41, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno, 

The Lobian machines are in agreement.  .-)

Where you write, """And I am even more demanding. You must not try to convince me, you must try to convince all Löbian machines. (A Lôbian machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Peano arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory are Löbian machines, all boolean topoï are also Löbian).""",  and Googling your breadcrumb of  "boolean topoi",   to get to another similarly named thread: https://www.britannica.com/topic/foundations-of-mathematics/The-quest-for-rigour#ref412262 ....

Roughly, if all boolean topoi are Lobian, then, since magnetic tetrahedron ~are a constructed  boolean topos,

Really? I would like to see the paiper which proves that, but to my ear it sounds very weird. I did not know that a magnetic tetrahedron was a category. Which one? 

[rf] Your criticisms may be correct, particularly with the specificity of definitions and rules within your linguistic community, however,  I am beginning to think that you have an extremely biased or closed view on mathematical structures and numbers.   

It is just that you use some precise term with your own idiosyncratic meaning. I am just trying to understand, but you never give sufficiently a precise definition so that I can figure out any meaning. I do not know what you assume and what you derive. 

From my perspective, boolean topoi and magnetic tetrahedra are the same pattern;

I am sorry Ralph, but that does not convey any sense to me. 

the same category, although no doubt I make this statement just from the physical intuition of the analog math in light of the similarity of the mathematical structures and terms. 

Write a paper showing up the similarities.

Or, perhaps I should say, because nested structured~duality is the underlying (universal) pattern,  the magnetici tetrahedral analog math provides physical intuition on other ~universal mathematical structures and relationships.

Idem.

But, you notice I employ different types of "numbers", appropriate to the task of conveying physical intuition, than you employ for your purposes.

  you get (have given) the proof you say you and the other Lobians need.  

This carries over, on a good day according to my ~slipshod logic,  to nested structured~duality,   by virtue of   standard boolean labeling being considered as [true,false] where as the underlying [attraction,repulsion] is present in the formative, foundational  ~magnetic tetrahedral analog math.   Both are or reflect a similar or roughly equivalent (structured) duality, but use slightly different terms and conjure different but mostly equal concepts within the various linguistic communities.  

I would go out a little further on the thin ice

You live dangerously, but to compare with the “machine’s interview”, you need to make things completely precise, and independent of the vocabulary used. You will need some amount of first order logic to do that.

[rf] Probably. However, try to imagine that your model and assumptions are incomplete.  Imagine that there is  another way. 

The whole point is that IF digital Mechanism is correct, then it is impossible. You need to study the proof, and forget all about your intuition, even if the intuition is confirmed later. No two human have the same intuition, which is a very personal thing. As a math teacher, I live this everyday. What is totally obvious for some is total mystery for others. We need to start from what we agree on.

I point out that  our human ability to assess true from false (particularly after eating from the tree of knowledge of  good and evil),  is highly over-rated. We greatly admire what is true, or claim to, yet ourselves and our surroundings are also deeply nested repulsive and attractive structures and generally, we cannot tell the difference between the two with great certainty. About the only absolute we can find is that repulsion is ~truly attraction with one-half spin (and vise versa).  Yet, we can observe and agree that, say, balanced attractive-repulsive units within a state, such as n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, are more stable and self-organizing than other states, and thus, both externally on the tabletop, and internally within similar (sp^3 hybridized) carbon-water-based units, will, to us (who are doing internal representations and assessments in the cwb units) always "make more sense" to us and/or will persist, as we like to call it, as "true", more so than units being unstable and "~false".  Considering attraction as love, and perhaps depending on one's faith, we also still find ourselves nested within one ~spin-structured attractive field.

This seems to assume physics, which is not possible in the mechanist context. Many things you say should be made more precise, and, derived from arithmetic, in case it is true.

[rf] I admit leanings toward analog/physical but notice, in claiming reality is nested structured~duality,  I am also just pointing at four one-half-spin-able dualic increments in a tetrahedral structure.   Locally, there are just three patterns:   n4-s4, n3s-ns3, and n2s2. These don't expand to five patterns except upon referencing to the enfolding environment for a reference point (~ala, Andy Clark's notion), giving the five states:  n4,ns3,n2s2,ns3,s4 -- ~proving that some of our field knowledge is located in the enfolding environment.

To much unclear to me.

But am I assuming physics, or have I just picked a structure and a duality and then observe and  experience attraction and attraction with one-half-spin (aka, repulsion)?  I understand I have just done the latter.  It is AFTER this rather autistic setup that the analog math then demonstrates and provides the physical intuition on various low level physics patterns.  

What is spin, if you don’t assume something physical? Your statement here is contradictory.

I vaguely understand that what I accomplish/observe occurring  in this universal analog math is somewhat like what you theorize or hypothesize being able to do with Turing devices doing an infinite or very high number of abstract math arithmetic steps. 

I assume only that the brain (or the generalised brain) is Turing emulable. All what I say is derived from this. 

 I suppose your Turing devices might be able to stumble onto this shortcut if it/they introspected and noticed it/they and their surroundings were nested structured~duality  and then picked  tetrahedron for structure and 'magnets' for duality, and then built "it" and explored "it" etc., . 

I interview machines without any sensor, to be sure they don’t cheat by looking at any sort of reality but themselves (and arithmetic or Turing equivalent). 

   

But, how would the Turing device(s) 'know' to reference magnet poles in relation with the enfolding magnetic field so as to identify five states rather than  the three more entangled or dualic states? Or, is referencing against knowledge stored in the environment something that would need to be taught to the devices so as to hope to have it generate recognizable 'physics’?

You need to understand that with mechanism, there is no primary physical reality at all. That simply cannot exist. Physical primaries stop making sense: it is Maya. It is what we must awaken from (if interested in the spiritual fundamental inquiry).

Here, of course, I am winging it just based on the assumption or the *feel* that magnetic tetrahedra are boolean topoi and both are instances of nested structured~duality.  

There are important well known dualities there, like Stone duality, but I am not sure how to relate that with a magnetic tetrahedron.

[rf] Most likely, neither do I.   A guess woul;d be, back in the Boolean algebra where: """In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are numbers, and the prime operations are addition and multiplication, the main operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunction and denoted as ∧, the disjunction or denoted as ∨, and the negation not denoted as ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes numeric relations. """  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra   

in the tactile, internal  analog math,  the ~actual values are not "true" and "false" but are "attraction" and "repulsion", which, perhaps readers can envision as approximated via the Boolean algebra terms of  "conjunction", "disjunction" -- and maybe "negation".     That is,  Boolean algebra is sort of an abstraction of structured attractions-repulsions. 

That can make sense … if you tell us that kind of things in advance, and with much more precision. 

In the """there is an ample supply of categorical dualities between certain categories of topological spaces and categories of partially ordered sets.

But here you jump in the non boolean frame. So you lost me. 

Today, these dualities are usually collected under the label Stone duality, """, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_duality ---  you and other readers MAY observe that these Stone dualities arise  because  of folks having a pile of topological spaces (structures) and a separate pile of partially ordered sets (dualities), and then there being some abstract way to shuffle the two together into Stoner dualities.  

In regions and lands  where people understand reality is nested structured~duality, that is, where the model/reality is nested rather than non-nested,   and structures and dualities are NOT separate (aka, reality is nested structured~duality),  one picks a structure and a duality, essentially together, and builds outward from there.  

If you want me to follow what you say, you need to define *all* terms use. All. Absolutely all, and this from concept we can agree on. Maybe you will need some set theory.

You must understand that mathematicians are extremely simple minded.

The associations with "language" arising in Googling "stone duality", hint at a common theme with the storyline I present about building a paradigm (language) by picking a structure and picking one or more dualities, and building outward from those initial conditions. 

Where? Provide links, or it looks like dream or project.

 So, there seems to be  some type of kinship between NSD and Stone dualities, but apparently, the NSD expression is more compact or laconic.   

It is so much laconic, than to compare with Stone dualities (which are on the contrary very precise notion), seems weird at the start.

If it is possible that anyone catches this drift,  again, I would point back to the notion that  ~zero "magnetic field strength" structural elements (regular structures) would also belong  to the class or category of what I used to call bipolar polyhedral structures (BPS) by which I try to point at the idea that the various "states", maybe partially ordered sets, would ~be or could be considered to be  present even if zero bipolar strength.  That is, all structures are bipolar polyhedral structures and thus have multiple states as is shown in magnetic tetrahedron.  

I can’t make sense of this. 

I take these liberties, in part because of things I read on the Internet, for instance, "To a modern logician, a mathematical structure is precisely this: a set of abstract entities with relations between them." attributed to Max Tegmark in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ . 

Sometimes he got the math right, but of course he talk about some representation of mathematical structure. Indeed, they have invented the topi to escape the constraints of the topos of set. But with computationalism, even this must be extracted from the machine looking inward. 

[rf]  Aka, via setting up a different instance of nested structured~duality… 

As I said, you have not define this, neither by axioms in case it is a primitive notions, nor by representing it in known and understood mathematical structure.

Please, don’t answer this before I answer you next post.

Bruno

Here he advocates picking a structure (set of abstract entities) and one or more  dualities (relations between them), which qualifies, close enough,  as constructing yet another instance of nested structured~duality.  

I am waiting you make this precise, testable, or I take them as hunch, but hunch about precise things lurks around the 1004 mistake: vague comment on to much precise concepts.

[rf] I'll try to post a video of the boring analog math soon. 

Similar connections are with notions of  Donald H. Hoffman as in  The Atlantic:  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/  

and with notions of Andy Clark   https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10404  on Predictive coding and our uses of storing 'information', etc., in the structure of our bodies and in the environment.  

Considering these persons' perspectives,  along with noting the typical instances of "simple machines" in classical physics, vaguely, I may be beginning to see some sense developing in how it is that working through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states and also a feel for the pattern(s) in our make-up which allow us to bobble along, and survive  in the local variable mass-density.  

Again, call it a  non-classical simple machine, or a poor man's unified field ~equation and/or an initial (analog math) ~equation of quantum gravity, but there is some empirical validity that comes via  analog math expression that is simply not available, or not available/developed yet,  via the abstract math trade route.  

The first step is to establish physical intuition and spark creative imagination.

Thanks for your help.

I think you have a lot of work to do, I mean, if you hope to make this understandable for the others,

Kind regards,

Bruno

[rf] Are you meaning "abstract math/logic" work?       If so, don't hold your breath.   I think the effort is getting the empirical evidence out and then seeing if the universal model generates more instances or increments of physical intuition in more participants.

Time for bed, though.

Best regards, 

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

[..snip..]

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/bb59bb92-f796-4221-8010-46bc524fd1ba%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Vinod,

On 27 Feb 2018, at 10:23, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 19, 2018, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:43, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fundamentality of any numbers and their relations in the absence of any consciousness/minds and some discrete physicality is inconceivable and  prima facie an absurd proposition since
> i) Numbers per se lack any ontology of their own. By ontology, I a mean some "substance" or “structure"
>
> So you choose the Aristotelian ontology at the start. OK. Mechanism is then necessarily wrong. 
> But I have never see an evidence for substance. And structure is a mathematical concept which can be defined, but it assumes much more than the numbers.

BUT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHY ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY SHOULD  BE INCOMPATIBLE  WITH  NUMBERS, THEIR RELATIONS AND ARITHMETIC?

You have to keep in mind my working hypothesis: digital mechanism, or computationalism, in the cognitive science. In that case, my (mundane) consciousness is supposed to be preserved through a substitution of my brain or my body (including possibly a part of the environment) for a digital computer emulating this at some right substitution level.

Then you have to keep in mind a fundamental result in computer science, obtained by those who discovered the universal machine (the mathematical computer). They have eventually understood that the notion of universal machine is not just mathematical, but already arithmetical. In fact Kurt Gödel showed this before, but without realising it. Emil Post also anticipated all this much before.

This means that if you are willing to bet that “18 is not a prime number” is true independently of your mundane consciousness then “this or that computation will exist, if it exists, independently of your mundane consciousness.

Maybe I could put it in another way. If you are willing to accept the truth that “18 is not prime” is true in the cosmic consciousness, or from the cosmic consciousness “view-point", then the existence of all computations is fixed and determined in that absolute point of view.

That second formulation is somehow problematic, as you can guess with an expression like “cosmic consciousness’ point-of-view. The philosopher Nagel suggests the 0th-person view in an (arguably) similar context. 

When this part of the definition of true/absolute is formalised, or asked to the Universal Machine, It remains mute or ask question about a possible identification between Truth and the semi-computable truth. The identification will be of the same type than self-consistency: that is true but not rationally assertable/justifiable.

>
>
>
> ii) All the arithmetic is a product of our assumptions as produced in our conscious minds.
>
> That makes sense in your non-mechanist Aristotelian theory. I prefer to assume 2+2=4, which is far less speculative, and accepted by all scientists.

IRRESPECTIVE  OF THE FACT WHETHER THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY, THIS IS A FACT THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2--4 UNLESS THERE IS THE PRIOR EXISTENCE OF TWO.

I have given my precise assumption: classical logic + the theory of Robinson sometimes called Q:

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

From this you can deduce Ex(x = s(s(0)), that we interpret as the existence of the number two (the successor of the successor of zero).

The more surprising thing is that we can derive the existence of all computations, including those supporting universal machines involved in rich and deep (intrinsically long) computations. They act as filter to differentiate the consciousness of the universal machine.

Again, the consciousness of the universal machine, abstracted from all its computations, cannot be identified with the cosmic consciousness, in public. It will be true from the cosmic point of view, but false from the terrestrial relative mundane third person view.

At this place, the theorem of Solovay, which captures the true and the provable discourse of what the machine can prove and conceive about itself (in eventually eight senses), helps to disentangle all the subtleties.

I ADD FURTHER THAT YOU CAN ASSUME 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 SINCE YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF DISCRETE ONTOLOGY OF DIFFERENT TYPES -- 2 TREES, 2 APPLES, 2 PROTONS.

Yes, I took the numbers from the empirical reality, and I even took the notion of “if … then … else” from the Lactose Operon (regulator gene) of the bacterium Escherichia Coli. Nature is quite inspiring.

But, metaphysically, or theologically, I cannot be aware of an ontology. I can only be aware of an experience, or maybe a person. I might wake up in two seconds, and laugh of myself having taken for granted the trees, the appels, and the protons. 

At least, with mechanism, the dreams obeys laws, and it leads to a sort of measurable degrees of relativity.Quantum mechanics seems to confirms we belong to a very solid sharable type of dream. 

SO YOUR ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 IS CONTINGENT ON FOLLOWING

I) EXISTENCE OF SOME PRIOR CONSCIOUSNESS

That is correct, at the meta-level. Mechanism, in the quasi-operational sense of saying “yes” to the digitalist doctor, assume not just consciousness, but a sort of invariance for local transformation of what supports the corresponding computations.

We can be neutral long before trying to identify the cosmic consciousness with any thing.

II) YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH SOME DISCRETENESS PERTAINING TO ONTOLOGY OF ANY TYPE EXISTING IN NATURE.

If Nature get a primitive ontological feature, you will need complex actual infinities to attach univocally a consciousness to that ontology. It can make sense, but it makes things much more complicated. I prefer to avoid any ontological commitment before some evidence.

I give a way to test this. The idea is very simple: compare the physics in the head of all universal numbers with “Nature”.

NONE OF THE NUMBERS ARE INCONCEIVABLE OUTSIDE THE ABOVE TWO VIZ CONSCIOUSNESS AND DISCRETENESS.

I guess you mean CONCEIVABLE. 

The Digital Mechanist hypothesis relates consciousness and discreteness in a way which explains the numbers real experience of the illusion of the continuum (including the physical qualla and quanta) and of its lawful local persistence. 

You must understand that the mathematician thought the natural numbers were simpler than the real numbers, but after Gödel we understand that we understand nothing. The main reason is due to the mess brought by the universal numbers. And it is worst from the first person perspective related to the numbers involved in the universal relation, as they are indeterminate on infinitely many computations.

I am open to the idea that only some Nature can solve the consciousness/matter relation problem, but then it will have to do it through non Turing emulable means, nor using the infinities already met by the first person associated to the universal number in arithmetic.

All what I say is that this is testable, and somehow Everett formulation of QM, and Einstein formulation of GR confirms up to now this Pythagorean theology. I think.

>
>
>
> iii) In the absence of any discrete physical ontology, numbers lose any meaning.
>
> Why? On the contrary, we can explain in all details why numbers brings meaning to their relation, by their highly sophisticated theology that they have already provided to us, even if it is throughout difficult math papers.

ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS ARE BORNE OUT OF THE PRIOR EXPERIENCE  OF CONSCIOUSNESS  IN YOU AND YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF DISCRETENESS IN NATURE.

The theory is given by its axioms and rules. Its origin is not part of it. 

Its origin is double. 

It is contingent for the here and now, and it is a theorem of arithmetic, for the out of time and space, by (again) Gödel’s arithmetization of the metamathematics, through some digital machine (of the declarative type) embedding itself in arithmetic. The “theory” of the logician are digital machines, sort of “toy-mathematicians” which appears to have a quite rich and testable theology.

>
>
>
> It is true that numbers are unique in the sense that they are equally applicable to the discrete ontology of any type  --  1 tree, 1 proton, 1 apple etc but it is also true that they should definitely pertain to some discrete ontology. 
>
> Yes, the infinite set {0, 1, 2, 3, …}. The mind and the matter comes from their relations.

THE INFINITE SET OF 1,2,3,4, ...IS BORN IN OUR MINDS AS SOME ASSUMPTIONS  SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY
I)  HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF 1,2,3,4,... DISCRETE OBJECTS IN NATURE

Us? Yes with “us” = the humans. Not really with “us” the universal numbers.

Nature and humans are the phenomenological product of infinitely many arithmetical relations.

So, once we assume the natural numbers, with their elementary laws, everything else is either redundant, or a falsity. (Again, when we assume Mechanism: this is a meta-theorem).

II) IDENTIFIED THESE OBJECTS THRU SOME UNIQUE COGNITIVE MECHANISM.

*all* cognitive mechanism are implemented, in the sense of Church and Turing, in elementary arithmetic.

THIS IS THIS UNIQUE COGNITIVE MECHANISM OF IDENTIFYING THE DISCRETE OBJECTS WHICH APPEARS THRU NUMBERS AS A DEFAULT.

>
>
>
> When a number 1 or a relation  1+1=2 arise in mind ( 1+1=2  is also a universal assumption produced in minds), immediately question arises as to the number 1 or relation 1+1 pertains to what? 1 tree or 1 apple or 1 protons.
>
> “1+1=2” is produced in the mind, but that does not imply that 1+1 would be different from 2 is they were no mind.

BUT FOR THE MIND, THERE CAN'T BE ANY EXISTENCE  OF 1 OR 1 PLUS 1 --2. SO THERE CAN'T BE ANY QUESTION OF 1 PLUS 1 EQUAL OR DIFFERENT THAN 2. OUTSIDE OF OUR MIND,

Why? 

It is simpler to make a theory of mind from elementary arithmetic, knowing that it is Turing universal, than justifying that 1+1=2 by the psychology. Related to neural nets having evolve for long period after an asteroid smash their predators. The long explanation, if made more formal will be shown using already the assumption of the number relations.

THERE MAY EXIST  SOME DISCRETE OBJECTS.

You mean in Nature? But if Nature is the criteria of truth, then all you need is to assume a non-computationalist theory of mind. 

I am a Platonist: I am quite skeptical about what I don’t see, but I am even much more skeptical about what I can see.

BUT HOW MANY THESE OBJECTS? THIS CAN'T EXIST IN NATURE ON ITS OWN. THIS WILL TAKE BIRTH WHEN OUR MINDS WILL START IDENTIFYING WITH THE DISCRETE OBJECTS. ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THR DISCRETE OBJECTS BY OUR MIND, NUMBERS WILL ARISE IN OUR MINDS AS PART OF SOME UNIQUE COGNITIVE THOUGHT.

No problem, but you will need special infinities in both mind and matter, and that is quite speculative to me.

Note that I use the numbers because people are familiar with them. I could use any Turing universal system instead, for the basic ontology (the primitive terms). With the combinators, the “theory of everything” is even shorter: 

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz)

See my previews post, but it is not important. Just that I want people idolasing the numbers, like some pythagoricians did. From the two equations above, I can also prove the existence of all computations, and of the universal combinators and actually of the universal numbers, etc.

I told you that eventually “cosmic consciousness” and “arithmetic” are deeply related, but it is dangerous to assert it without much caution, as those relations can be proved to be part of the non-communicable by the self-referentially correct machine. We can’t enforce an idea which can only be experienced, or we will prevent it. But even here I say too much. It all belongs to G* minus G. G* \ G captures what is true only without saying, which is a vast space for any universal machine/person.

Best regards,

Bruno

[Paul Werbos]

On this thread, some people hinted that even the mundane brain level of consciousness cannot be explained in terms of computation, on grounds that it cannot be reduced to Turing computability.

I agree that it cannot be reduced to universal Turing machine (except with exponentially expensive approximation/simulation) BUT CAN be understood in terms of computation, because we are now far past the dependence on Turing machines.

There is an analogy here to the Cantor sequence of infinities -- Turing to aleph zero; superTuring (ala David Deutsch or ala Siegelmann and Sontag) to aleph one; and combined superTuring to aleph two. (See www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf for discussion of the relations in detail. I can only post the authors proofs, with revisions, because a web page crash killed my copy of the original published paper.) The neural network intelligence of the mundane brain fits the superTuring model ala Siegelmann/Sontag; the optimal physical intelligence (which I claim the noosphere possesses) requires "aleph two" mathematics. 

[Ralph Frost]

Dear Paul, 

Thank you for your thoughtful questions and replies.  I have been muddling through a few of my own confusions  and incomplete notions recently, and when I re-read your Jan 1 post, I thought I'd try to start the year over.

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 11:56:12 AM UTC-5, paul.werbos wrote:

Hi, Ralph!

I apologize for delay in replying. Have been off on other things, some still overdue.

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the storyline I am advocating, rather than split or dissociate  abstract math off into the imagined separate xyz-cubic partition, the analog math I start with unfolds with the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron: n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.This provides physical intuition on variable mass density multiple states differing  in increments of one-half spin and, concurrently, a moderately accurate yet approximate  "look and feel" model of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns  pervasive thoughout life, ourselves and a very large fraction of our surroundings. 

Analog math is certainly essential to understanding the basics of the world we live in, at all levels. Purist, unbalanced black and white digital thinking has led to many forms of blinder and insanity.

But what can one do with macroscopic rod magnets? Maxwell's laws and Newtonian mechanics mostly do a good job of characterizing what we can do with such systems, when we do not inject new capabilities like quantum entanglement which require new technologies/designs. For energy generation... I have worked out the case for continuous systems governed by a large class of partial differential equations (PDE), but not done much for the practical classical case, because it did not look promising.

[rf] As for what one can do with magnets or magnetic fields, I think that is an open question. A central part of my story's backstory arises by ~conceptually "magnetizing" or "energizing" all of the polyhedral artifacts  invented and popularized by R.Buckminster Fuller last century. The idea grows from the question: "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of four magnets?"  Tetra implies poly, and the inner four radial magnets implies the outer six edge magnets, and so in a couple of moves, back in 1978-1981 during oil embargoes and the Iranian crises, thinking about energy generation rather than  load-bearing, space-enclosing structures, I found myself considering/~defining/visualizing  all the "isomers and states of all sizes and scales of  the inner and outer bipolar polyhedral structures (bps)".  The only "math" equation I think I noticed was the N+1 "isomer permutation rule",  which "predicts" the number of inner isomers or states of an  inner 'bps" artifact with N vertices/radii.   Thus, 4+1 = 5,  6+1 = 7,  8+1 = 9, 12+1 = 13, and 20+1 = 21, for the regular platonic solids.  I think this "equation" only predicts the minimum number of states (or one-half spins of each radii) for things above tetrahedron. It is very possible/probable I am also wrong about that.  Like I say, I am pathetic, severely muddled, in math.

As for Maxwell's and Newton's  contributions carrying the load and providing for us, please try not to take this the wrong way, but perhaps provisionally consider or imagine that those approximations are truly wonderful, but that there is something slightly amiss in the paradigmatic tenets these models are based and developed upon and  thus they reinforce a slightly skewed ontological picture which sort of starts out as a non-nested, "imagine empty space",  rather than as "imagine nested fields within nested fields", or, as you might put it: "imagine MQED or perhaps multiple levels of nested MQED".

The thing along this line of analog math, though,  is just enumerating the five magnetic tetrahedra, a participant gets appreciation and physical intuition on the central sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns in our and our surroundings make-up. Reflection on the hand-held model mirroring the inner bonding pattern illuminates the underlying general principle of reality resting upon the common denominator of "nested structured~duality" (NSD).  

Then we can sort of look backwards and say, "Oh, yeah. Look at that. Tao/yin-yang; Cube/subject-object;Cube/space-time, Double slit/wave-particle, etc..  -- Many, many instances of nested structured~duality."

 

"Nesting" these primary five states within an enfolding (cubic) structure generates an additional ten recognizable ~secondary states, illuminating the underlying general principle of "nested structured~duality" and that nested structure generate multiple states; pointing toward nested fields within nested fields being fundamental.  

I don't have a formal interpretation of what "nesting" means. 

It sounds a bit like the usual great chain of approximation, which can be built up from the most basic physics to successive levels of approximation addressing emergent phenomena at every greater levels of time and space. And which entails both modeling and design of subsystems and systems. 

[rf] I Googled "great chain of approximation" and got back "great chain of Being", which, to my bad eyesight  late at night seemed to include many small mandala-types of drawings and references  to the Greeks and through Western and Christian heritages of knowledge/math/science.   Rather than you getting a formal --Or is it, an epistemological? -- sense of "nesting",  might I suggest you consider the full-meal-deal first and consider the ontological: reality is nested structured~duality -- or consider our nested structural coding -- or our reality being nested fields within nested fields?

I mean,  let's say you say, "Okay, 'hierarchical', Got it. Close enough." Then it's  on to "structured~duality", or maybe just to "duality" which, separated out, is an even a weaker spot (for me).   Then it is on to "structure", and then back to "structured~duality".  Right. ...Why merge or entangle  these two together?  Then finally, I am pretty sure the conclusion is, as dissected and analyzed, "nested structured~duality" simply makes no sense.

In the full-meal-deal, what participants face is trying to accept  [nested structured~duality] in just one bite as the name/descriptor of the underlying general principle that  is at work, say, when transcending from absolute space and absolute time, to curved space-time.    But also, back to "bipolar polyhedral structures", the bipolarity or duality did originally  reduce down to considering a small or some difference in some features or properties of the two ends of every radii  or edge.  Thus, in all actual structures or field relations, maybe one or more electrons  are present  on one half than the other, or in the case of  a magnet, one "pole" or another.  So, it turns out that except for idealized ones, ~all structures are multiple-state "bipolar polyhedral structures"  in alignment with the later realized underlying general principle of nested structured~duality. 

In my continued fiddling with particularly the n2s2 state/pattern I developed a way to visualize that as we live and breathe, the similarly patterned  ~10^20 water molecules  per second forming in our aerobic respiration can form a ~6^n structurally coded internal analog math representation of our surroundings.  So, I have become enamoured with the s^3 hybridized bonding "carbon-water-based" analog math that we are ALL running. 

In this storyline, structural coding in the ordered water ~always has some sustenance-related energy-value meaning, and words, including the numbers-words  emerge downstream as hydrogen-bonding packets unfurl in sequenced patterns of protein-foldings (expressions). 

OK, that's a level more basic than the macroscopic magnets. Quantum mechanics certainly is important in describing molecules. Is this kind of chemistry important to the way in which "soul" perturbs our ordinary mundane human bodies?

[rf] I don't catch what you are meaning.  The thing that struck me as odd was, while other people seem largely  focused on, say, neurons and synapses, NCC, maybe neural networks, and them seeming to me to be assuming the neural network is just energized as if...  well, I don't know what others are thinking about networking and energy collection...   But here in the respiration reaction/electron transport system, which is internal to each and every neuron,  perhaps in multiple locations, here is this subsystem -- inner structure -- cranking out strings of, what I am visualizing as 6^n structurally coded  water molecules that seem to me to be related to and thus representative of the vibrational states of our surroundings.  So, even if it is just coding for fight versus flight, or passing emotions, or just indexing for relevant neuronal alignments,  implemented in hydrogen bonding packets that could signal directly for, say, immediate protein-folding or opening the adrenalin floodgate,  our aligning synapses,  here I am looking at an internal analog representation of surroundings related with energy collection and conservation, and with protein formation and folding.    Because the internal representation ~is coupled with energy collection/conservation and is forming sort of as a synergetic sidebar of energy collection, I am sort of like in a omni-everywhere synergetic   swoon.   [No wonder Don Juan told Carlos Castaneda to not go into or get lost in the water. Or, later where I read Isaiah 12:3 "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation."]

So, as far as "a kind of chemistry important to the way in which "soul" perturbs our ordinary mundane human bodies",   perhaps so.   But, to me, it is also "just"  applications and codings of more of  mostly tetrahedral-like, sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding patterns that I had learned about in Organic Chemistry in 1974-1975 (before I went ABD).   In my perspective,  "playing around"  with the five field states of a hand-held magnetic tetrahedron conveyed physical intuition via the tactile sensory channel that is also patterned, okay, approximately, roughly, close enough, in the same five structural energetic patterns.   Along the way, I get the impression some of how such 6^n structural coding "can work" is through "molecular torquing", in forming and recalling; writing and reading.  

I have wondered about that at times. I even mentioned such things in a paper published in Nanobiology long long ago. But in truth, we don't know. We do know that our mundane bodies and DNA are the result of nearly a billion years of effective natural selection, and that we do not know the underlying principles of "soul"-body interaction well enough yet to build similar capabilities into the systems we build. That may be just as well, but I was intrigued last week by the question of what we might learn even from such humble looking phenomena as poltergeist stuff.

[rf] Or ball lightning?  Or audible hallucinations?    We seem to also be going along with a billion years or more of  hydrogen bonding, but in the local region, perhaps less in a photosynthetic-aerobic respirational  symbiosis.   

 

In this way, I suppose, I have a visualizable model of the nested structural coding, roughly, in a tetrahedral motif, including our genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, respirational, etc., structural coding that forms ~naturally, represents ourselves and our surroundings, and give some account for meaning, expression and perhaps creativity. Additionally, due to the addition of new vocabulary, the term "consciousness" can be relegated t the bin holding "phlogiston" if one desires.  That is, fifty-nine flavors and types of consciousness are not defined in terms of "consciousness" but emerge as structural coding and  nested structural coding, you know, more accurately reflecting  within the nested fields within nested fields. 

Yes, they are all patterns at some level of the "great chain of approximation," with one arguable exception (that being the possibility that the underlying laws of physics MIGHT be interpretable as something LIKE an instance of neural network mathematics). 

[rf] Do you mean to add a missing ",too" to your statement?  I mean, I generally agree with the possibility or likelihood  you are saying about sometime there being an effective abstract math model.  However, we are talking about models and descriptions that exist already, aren't we?  Our situation, even in science is still: "one world, many descriptions".    The mainstream methodology involving mathematical descriptions and models certainly will persist, however,  that sort of abstraction or representation is not the only one.  Also, in the history of science there is evidence that that abstract math descriptive methodology is not always FIRST  to convey with new descriptions and insights.

Regarding  "something LIKE an instance of neural network mathematics",  the imagery I am noticing or proposing is that experiences of our surroundings ~get coded into some type of  ~field or in my approximate model,  ~molecular (in ordered water)  representation.   One point I am aware of is that when new experiences are encountered, new, unique/qualified codings need to be created. After creation, when such experiences repeat the codings need to be recognized.  In the carbon-water-based analog math that we aerobic creatures seem to be running in our respiration/representation reaction inner structure, this seems like a fairly straightforward type of synthesis thing to do. Roughly, sensory-tactile molecular torquing  structurally codes an inner representation. Then, if the coding is already coded there is the recognition and follow-on what-not steps. If it is ~new, though, then there is the creation/growth steps.   Doing this synthesis in carbon-water-based analog math is pretty natural.  But, what about over in the abstract math models of neural networking mathematics?  Is that model tuned and balanced also with energy collection and also creation of fresh new structural coding/ Or in the case of neurons, fresh new neural networked clusters  At least some of these new codings involve some organic or molecular synthesis -- protein formation, new ordered water stacks, new neural networking clusters.  In my storyline, , whatever.   

Please pardon me if I am existing within and communicating as in some kind of modern-day Michael Faraday-like stunt.  If I could do otherwise, I would, or perhaps IF the transition could be initialized and recognized in abstract mathematics expression terms first, I be happy to see it.   The way I ~see things, though,  I am just sketching in what von Neumann might call an "inner model"  in the respirational structural coding.   I'm saying, "Hey, have you folks ever noticed or consider ~this?"  And my impression is since it is an "inner model" activity  within neurons relating directly with energy collection and replacement parts and sustenance and expression and representation of surroundings, and structural alignments,  it does fit into the overall developing understanding.  It seems to me the analog math model, even as simple as it is,  augments or adds another level of organization to the neural networking storyline.     To my way of thinking, is certainly is not replacing  the more sophisticated abstract math.  But it does provide an introductory learning experience helpful to K-12 STEM educators and their students.

So, yes, there's "the possibility that the underlying laws of physics MIGHT be interpretable as something LIKE an instance of neural network mathematics". What your estimate on when that development project will bear fruit or be complete and rolled out?

Also, what's the plan for preparing the STEM educators in K-12 to introduce the material?

 

So, we seem to have a difference in our perspectives or in our schools of thought....  Er, but even when I admit and write that I still notice that both groups are  still using the  same "carbon-water-based" primary systems to conceptualize, scribble out and advocate their various instances of nested structured~duality.   Moreover, I admit I don't get informed of "sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding" (and essentially most everything else) except due to the developments within the "numerical/xyz-cubic" school of thought.   So, what we have is a difference in expression, or as I like to say, a difference in instances of nested structured~duality.  

Yes, the paradox of the knower not knowing himself is a pervasive issue in human life in all cultures... so far.

[rf] Yes, it is a difficulty one also runs into when seeking a thought worthy of speech. 

 

You folks pick cube for structure, or for initial/primary structure, maybe with increments already named and presorted or ordered along a line, then you add duality to get ~negative numbers and add additional directions to get the cubic (already nested) structured~duality.   Then, as someone wrote, you investigate the nested levels of organization, albeit in a somewhat un-sub-conscious way via first, second and third derivatives, etc.,  but it seems to uneducated folks like me that you don't and never do admit to working with (and thus assuming: holding the tenet of) a fundamentally ~nested system.  Even when ~you collapse space and time into space-time, ~you appear to ignore or deny the fundamental inner nested structured~duality.  

Oops. Are you referring to me or to others in this discussion?

[rf] Please pardon my mis-placed projection(s) and generalizations and accusations that miss many marks.  

 

But it is true that I don't see much new or interesting in the "Nesting" concept which has been discussed here, beyond the various chains of approximation and subsystem and chunking I take for granted after many years of working with them. I myself haven't spent time trying to developed reduced arithmetic descriptions of molecular chemistry, or of QED in general; it is enough of a challenge to develop clear disentanglement of key concepts and predictors and experiments taking full advantage of modern analog mathematics like multivariate calculus. 

[rf] The "taking it ('nesting') for granted", after decades of study and experience, is a bit what I am trying to point out. It seems like a common realization. Too common.   As with resorting to "transcendence", in varieties of circumstances.  Also, too common.  Similarly, with noting that the ordering of what things form and then are enfolded in what other arrangements - ordering, also influences outcomes.

I noticed some influence of "nesting"  by first starting with the five (primary) states of magnetic tetrahedron (n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4) and then noticing that when I added an enfolding field, that is,  ~fixed a tetrahedron inside  a cube so its six edges shared six diagonals.  That  "nesting"  generates eleven additional (secondary) states making for a total of sixteen ~states.   Just by adding an enfolding level of structure.       You may recognize a similar pattern in your tradition in terms of degrees of freedom and symmetry relations. But that may also be starting from an assumed  point-line-plane initial condition. Also, I'm guessing, but I don't think ~your group  start out considering that all structures have and/or are  multiple states.  So, different instance of nested structured~duality.

Of course, birds have a very different concept of nesting.

Best of luck,

  Paul

[rf] Yes, birds and pregnant  women or couples.   All birds can also solve the flocking math problem, in their heads or wing tips, probably in their sleep.

Thanks for you fine questions and comments,  and for  reading.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Ralph,

On 4 Mar 2018, at 10:44, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I reply here below in attempt to convey to you an understanding of my term "nested structured~duality". 

Scroll down  a ways, below UTOPIA  to [rf Mar 4]...

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

On 1 Mar 2018, at 13:35, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

DEAR BRUNO,

MY WIFI CONNECTION IS NON- FUNCTIONING SINCE PAST  2-3 DAYS SO I AM CONSTRAINED TO SEND MESSAGES THRU MY CELLPHONE WHERE EDITING AND SPELL CHECK  FACILITIES  ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

Thanks for trying. It looks OK here.

On Thursday, March 1, 2018, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Vinod,
>
> On 27 Feb 2018, at 10:23, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 19, 2018, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:43, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fundamentality of any numbers and their relations in the absence of any consciousness/minds and some discrete physicality is inconceivable and  prima facie an absurd proposition since
>> i) Numbers per se lack any ontology of their own. By ontology, I a mean some "substance" or “structure"
>>
>> So you choose the Aristotelian ontology at the start. OK. Mechanism is then necessarily wrong. 
>> But I have never see an evidence for substance. And structure is a mathematical concept which can be defined, but it assumes much more than the numbers.
>
> BUT I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHY ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY SHOULD  BE INCOMPATIBLE  WITH  NUMBERS, THEIR RELATIONS AND ARITHMETIC?
>
>
> You have to keep in mind my working hypothesis: digital mechanism, or computationalism, in the cognitive science. In that case, my (mundane) consciousness is supposed to be preserved through a substitution of my brain or my body (including possibly a part of the environment) for a digital computer emulating this at some right substitution level.

BUT ABOVE IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS  WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

I have discovered all this the careful observation of nature, especially the microbial world, and the reading of books and papers in Molecular Biology, until I discovered that the circular loop I saw manifested in biology were already in arithmetic, which makes me decide to study mathematics (instead of biology) and eventually the proof of the completeness of arithmetic with respect to the existence of computations confirms my empirical feeling that the physical reality has a phenomenological origin only.

There are many evidence of the Mechanist hypothesis. All known natural laws confirms it (except the wave-packet reduction), but we have also already the indirect consequences: the many-words/histories and the quantum logic of the observable.

Any way, I do not defend the truth of mechanism. I am open to its falsity. But the evidences are much more on the side of arithmeticalism than of physicalism. In fact physicists usually do not inquire on metaphysics, and no paper in physics assumes the primary matter of the physicalist metaphysicians, unless they are “believer” of some sort.

THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS  WHETHER OUR CONSCIOUSNESS  SURVIVES DIGITAL SUBSTITUTION  BY A MACHINE OR A COMPUTER  OR NOT?

Indeed, and I could explain why this cannot exist. 

But this is close to obvious, as there is no proof (argument or reason) for its contrary.

IN VIEW OF THIS, ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS  IS AN UTOPIA.

All theories are. We can only count the evidence, and appreciate or not the simplicity and elegance of the theory.

> Then you have to keep in mind a fundamental result in computer science, obtained by those who discovered the universal machine (the mathematical computer). They have eventually understood that the notion of universal machine is not just mathematical, but already arithmetical. In fact Kurt Gödel showed this before, but without realising it. Emil Post also anticipated all this much before.

DID THOSE WHO DISCOVERED THE UNIVERSAL MACHINE OR MATHEMATICAL COMPUTER DISCOVER IT  WITHOUT THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS  OR MIND?

Of course not, and they use paper to publish the result. But you cannot infer validly that this makes consciousness primary or different from the arithmetical truth seen by itself.

[rf Mar 4] I think the distinction I am trying to make is right in this region of your thinking, where I infer, or peer inward through both "consciousness" and "arithmetical truth seen by itself",  and name the underlying commonality: nested structured~duality.

I am not sure I understand.

OBVIOUSLY NO. SO THE WHOLE CONCEPT  OF THR UNIVERSAL MACHINE ITSELF IS CONSCIOUSNESS  OR MIND BASED AND OUT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS, NEITHER THERE CAN BE THE EXISTENCE  OF ANY NUMBER  NOR. ANY UNIVERSAL MACHINE.

That does not follow. I need my consciousness to believe in the existence of the moon, does not logically entail that without my consciousness the moon does not exist. 

As a scientist, I have no choice than to start on the proposition people agree with, and I start with elementary arithmetic, if only to define precisely what a digital machine is.

[rf Mar 4]  Not that you are necessarily doing it since you do propose some type of epistemological construction and some kind of test, but the general appearance is, after you get through saying one cannot  validly choose "consciousness as primary", it appears you go ahead and assume "arithmetical truth seen by itself" as primary. This step creates  several opportunities for immediate confusion and conflict. 

Also, consider your term: "arithmetical truth seen by itself".   First, my hunch is, Vinod and I and others ~ see it as  "arithmetical truth and/or notions of arithmetical truth as seen by consciousness”.

OK. But it is the consciousness of the universal person canonically attached to the many relative incarnation/implementation in arithmetic.

Secondly, though,  look at the statement itself: "arithmetical truth seen by itself".   Yes, just sub-consciously opting for mathematical-like recursions probably seem acceptable particularly as an ad hoc or natural maneuver, but I would ask you to consider the other typical strategy  for resolving knots of this type: some kind of transcendence to a different level of organization. 

Maybe? That is not precise enough, but I would compare this with the nuances on provability/rational-believability imposed by incompleteness.

Both are recursive, but more than that, both are also instances of  an inherent, but until ~now not even provisionally ~formalized or acknowledged (as far as my meager knowledge has it)  as a universal pattern of "nesting" or "nested structure”. 

That is to vague for me. Numbers and recursion is full of nested structure. Recursion by itself is not Turing universal, but recursion needs not much to become Turing universal, and once we get the Turing universality, … God lose control somehow, and lost Itself in the “creation”.

 People apparently assume such in many instances and resort to transcendence (often un- or sub-consciously)  when the going gets tough, and certainly at points of paradigm transition. 

So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:

p     (truth of arithmetical proposition p)

[]p   (probability)

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible).

Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).

It is testable, because the following:

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible)

… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter. 

But, how come that works?   It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name.  

?

This thing that I advocate, that reality is nested structured~duality,  to me is a way of asserting that  reality is a "nested" or "hierarchical" system.   That the nesting is a universal feature or principle.  This leads me to sometime accuse the dominant scientific paradigm as being a "non-nested model as a opposed to what I am saying it inherently is as a nested system.   I am aware that we all generally work with various stacks: {physical, metaphysical},  {mathematical, physical, theological,metaphysical...}, [subatomic, atomic, molecular, organic, biologic, species, ecological...} etc.. And these all seem to imply a sort of ad hoc or unconscious acceptable of nesting, which they do.  

You remind me someone defending anti-foundation axiom in set theory. With mechanism, we get the natural nesting provided by the many recursion theorems.

However, at this junction, particularly, in trying to develop a scientific paradigm accounting for  physical and mental artifacts and attributes,  I see the need and advantage to   name  and transcend to the more unified level of organization.  Thus, reality is nested structured~duality.

I would say this for the platonic Noùs, the intellect. The truth above (the One, the cosmic consciousness) is one, and thus not a many (and thus not nested). The nested view of the one is in the many “ideas”, and those ideas are nested in more than one ways.

Regarding ~you developing understanding of "assume reality is nested structured~duality”,

I don’t know what you mean by reality. It is the object of inquiry. My method is starting with the hypothesis that our bodies are mechanical, and the results is that the ultimate truth is elementary arithmetic, with the physical given by a mode of self-reference. Making that theory of consciousness testable. To assume reality is a nested structure without saying which one is saying too much general. It is true, but does not lead to testing, at least not that I can figure out from what you say. “Reality” is as much general than “nested structured-duality”. A duality between what and what?

I suggest you try to accept it  as a more general form of, and providing a container for  your "assume mechanism" hypothesis, albeit,  since NSD is more general, it contains and describes all hypotheses, theories, models, etc.,  in that each of those artifacts and their descriptions (their ontologies and epistemologies) arise from and invoke and are assessed by the recursive NSD pattern of "pick a structure and pick one or more dualities or distinctions and build additional nested structured~dualities outward, from (those/recent/adjacent) initial (nested structured~duality) conditions".   

In this way, the term: "nested structured~duality"  is or becomes the name or label of the "root class" of reality -- each reality, every reality.    Previously, this  root class was  active and influential and used on an ad hoc basis, but it was also unacknowledged as a universal feature and it was also nameless.  Now it is acknowledged and named.

I am sorry but I do not understand.

 

BOTH KURT GÖDEL AND EMIL POST WERE ALSO DEPENDENT ON THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS  AND MINDS FOR MAKING  ANY HYPOTHESIS  OR THEOREM INCLUDING THAT OF UNIVERSAL MACHINE. SO YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT ANY STAGE FOR CONCEIVING OR EXISTENCE OF NUMBERS/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MSCHINE.

> This means that if you are willing to bet that “18 is not a prime number” is true independently of your mundane consciousness then “this or that computation will exist, if it exists, independently of your mundane consciousness.

BUT WITHOUT OUR MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF NO. 
18, LEAVE ALONE THR ISSUE OF IT BEING PRIME OR NOT.

Some insects exploit the primes 13 and 17 for the time of reproduction. Would you say that the prime numbers is a creation of the insects?

[rf] More likely they also have some relevant 12- and 16-unit length polymers involved  in some  packaging that prompt for the appearance of primes triggering from some uninformed observer perspective.  Notice again that you also bring up a composited, entangled math-physical instance or example and then infer you can validly then just erase the physical portion to regain the pre-conceived ~arithmetic realism/platonism.   

Not that that is unhelpful or non-productive tactic.   It's just not the only approach, nor (as the history of mathematics indicates) is it always the absolutely correct one.

I start from what I understand, to put light on what I don’t understand. The mystery I am interested in in the mind-body problem. 

I am more certain that 18 is not a prime number than I am of any natural laws. I am not sure I can make sense of your doubt here, if any.

You speculate on the existence of “ontologically primary” physical universe, but not only there are no evidence at all (still less proof), but we do have indirect evidence of the contrary (just the living animal and plants bodies, and the quantum mechanics which confirms the startling consequence of computationalism (our infinite self-multiplication at each instant).

[rf] Okay.  But let's say that among all the computationals, there are also some non-computationals, too, analogous, I guess, to prime numbers scattered amid the other  numbers.  What then?   Add another epicycle?  Create another instance of nested structured~duality   and cast it and conceptualize it in terms as an improved version of mathematical realism?

Or, might that be when ~you or other mathematicians might  need to consider  transcending  to a different, more unified  model?

Yes. Until we find a discrepancy with the observable. We learn when our theories are shown wrong, but they have to be enough precise for that.

 

If the brain (not consciousness) was not Turing emulable, you should find something which do not obey to the physical laws in the brain, as the current physical laws are mainly computable (only mathematicians can invent non computable solution of the schroedinger equation, by bringing up a special non computable hamiltonian, for which no evidence exist in nature. Note that classical physics and classical GR are not computable, but once made quantum, they are again computable.

[rf] Which, I understand, means descriptive of, right? 

Descriptive of?

By computable, I mean programmable on a universal number, or a universal machine, or a universal combinators, or (with Church-thesis) just programmable. A computation is a sequence of machine’s state brought by the activity of some universal machine/number.

I ARGUE THAT THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY NUMBER/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MACHINE OUTSIDE OUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS  EVEN IF THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DISCRETE OBJECTIVE REALITY OUTSIDE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS.

I can agree with this, as consciousness will eventually be explained with (only) the arithmetical truth. To explain this I would have to explain that “truth” itself is not something than we (the machines) can define. This requires too much technics for being done here and now.

The point is mainly that there is no physical universe, without the consciousness of the (Löbian) Numbers.

> Maybe I could put it in another way. If you are willing to accept the truth that “18 is not prime” is true in the cosmic consciousness, or from the cosmic consciousness “view-point", then the existence of all computations is fixed and determined in that absolute point of view.

YES, I AGREE TO THE ABOVE POINT OF VIEW TO SOME  EXTENT. BUT I THINK EVEN  COSMIC  CONSCIOUSNESS (CC)  CAN'T CONCEIVE OF ANY NUMBERS IN THR ABSENCE OF SOME DISCRETE PHYSICALITY.

CC created the natural numbers and CC thought it was all good.

Then CC told the numbers to add themselves, and CC thought that it was all nice.

Then CC told the numbers to multiply themselves and CC said: oops!

Why? Because once the numbers can add and multiply themselves, they brought the universal machine in the picture, and CC lost itself through all of them, until he remembers who CC is, and recognise itself in the others, even the humblest bacteria.

ALTERNATIVELY  I CAN ALSO SUGGEST THAT CC WANTED THE CREATION AND WORKING OF THE UNIVERSE  IN DETERMINED FASHION AS FOLLOWING SOME LAWS. THESE  LAWS FOUND ITS  EXPRESSION IN FORM OF ARITHMETIC OF  NUMBERS.

I think that the speculation on a primary physical universe makes everything Moree complicated, so in absence of any evidences, I prefer to not assume it at the start, and then look at the evidences provides by nature, and the evidences favour a lot Mechanism. The direct evidence fromboilogy, and the indirect (quantum) evidences coming from physics.

[rf] A middle way is to transcend to a more unified level of organization where both ~physical and  ~mental  (including the mathematical computable and non-computable artifacts) arise from the more unified common denominator or "root class" which I label as "nested structured~duality”. 

You take precise notions, and semantics to make them more difficult by using an expression that you have still not explain, or not explain the importance. The universal dovetailing (the program which generates all programs and execute them all) is nested in the transfinite, actually like the Mandelbrot set. Nesting is important, but does not make sense when taken as a primitive feature of reality.

What I give is a theorem, which is just that if we are machine, then physics is given by a mode of self-reference in arithmetic. It makes the neopythagorean right. For the ontology we don’t need more, an worst, we cannot use more without introducing a discrepancy with the consequence of mechanism.

 This avoids assuming a primary physical, OR a primary mathematic/arithmetic reality and each of those, plus more can continue along as they always have been just being instances of nested structured~duality, like all the other aspects, artifacts and experiences of reality.

> That second formulation is somehow problematic, as you can guess with an expression like “cosmic consciousness’ point-of-view. The philosopher Nagel suggests the 0th-person view in an (arguably) similar context.

0- TH PERSON VIEW PROPOSAL ILLOGICAL PRIMA FACIE.

OK. 

> When this part of the definition of true/absolute is formalised, or asked to the Universal Machine, It remains mute or ask question about a possible identification between Truth and the semi-computable truth. The identification will be of the same type than self-consistency: that is true but not rationally assertable/justifiable.

BUT STILL YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS  SINCE THE VERY ARITHMETIC MACHINE EXIST IN CONSCIOUSNESS  AND POSING OF ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD ALSO ARISE FROM CONSCIOUSNESS  

In science, we need to start from what people already believe. If you believe in “18 is not prime”, and alike, you will understand the reasoning, which does not prove mechanism (that is not the goal), but shows that mechanism makes the number (or Turing equivalent) primary..

That the numbers are creations of the CC is not really relevant at the start, although this is indeed proved when we accept some relation between consciousness and the concept of truth.

[rf] That's one way to go, I guess, relying upon mathematical recursion -- right?  Relying on arithmetical truth seen by itself?  

It is more like the arithmetical truth/reality as seen by the universal person emulated by the infinitely many arithmetical relations supporting it.

But in the transcendent approach, notice that where you say, """which does not prove mechanism (that is not the goal), but shows that mechanism makes the number (or Turing equivalent) primary..""", you are actually  proving is that nested structured~duality  (i.e., the stack of NSD that you are employing -- Turing machines and numbers and logic stacks, and mechanism, etc.,) is primary.   Remember, you represent numbers as  s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0)))... functions which are also rather obvious instances of nested structured~duality.

OK. The point is that 0, s(0), .. is enough. At some points, computations are equal to such s(s(s(s(s(s(…. (0)))))). Physical existence and psychological existence are brought by the true relation, provable or not by this or that numbers, among the numbers.  All what needs to be assumed “in fine” is elementary arithmetic. The physical realism is explained by a mathematical (arithmetical) Maya, a bit like if the numbers were inconceivably good in prestidigitation!

Best regards,

Bruno

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>

>> ii) All the arithmetic is a product of our assumptions as produced in our conscious minds.
>>
>> That makes sense in your non-mechanist Aristotelian theory. I prefer to assume 2+2=4, which is far less speculative, and accepted by all scientists.
>
> IRRESPECTIVE  OF THE FACT WHETHER THERE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY, THIS IS A FACT THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION OF 2 PLUS 2--4 UNLESS THERE IS THE PRIOR EXISTENCE OF TWO.

The existence of two, that is the truth of the statement Ex(x = s(s(0))) is a theorem of the theory described just below, like the existence of the prime numbers, and like the existence of the computations and their implementation in arithmetic. 

>
> I have given my precise assumption: classical logic + the theory of Robinson sometimes called Q:
> 0 ≠ s(x)
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    
> x+0 = x
> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> x*0=0
> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
> From this you can deduce Ex(x = s(s(0)), that we interpret as the existence of the number two (the successor of the successor of zero).

BUT THE QUESTION IS IF CAN YOU MAKE THE ABOVE PRECISE ASSUMPTIONS OF CLASSICAL LOGIC  OR THE THEORY OF ROBINSON  WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS?

I cannot, but my consciousness is required at some meta level. The statements just above do not refer to consciousness. Either you agree with them, or you refute them. A priori, they have nothing to do with matter and consciousness. But with mechanism, such relations appear.

OBVIOUSLY  NO. SO DEFINITELY, NO HYPOTHESIS, ARGUMENT, ASSUMPTION, THEOREM, NUMBERS, ARITHMETIC IS FEASIBLE WITHOUT  AND OUTSIDE THR CONSCIOUSNESS.

18 is prime is not a relative falsity. With or without consciousness 18 cannot be prime. Consciousness is needed only to accept that fact in some first person way.

> The more surprising thing is that we can derive the existence of all computations, including those supporting universal machines involved in rich and deep (intrinsically long) computations. They act as filter to differentiate the consciousness of the universal machine.

WE DERIVE THE EXISTENCE OF ALL COMPUTATIONS!! IT IS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS  WHICH DERIVES THE EXISTENCE OF COMMUTATIONS. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE MACHINE?

All universal digital machine “rich enough” (Löbian) can prove the existence of all computations. I think that they are as much conscious than you and me. But of course, only the first part of that statement is itself provable in “enough rich” arithmetical theories.

> Again, the consciousness of the universal machine, abstracted from all its computations, cannot be identified with the cosmic consciousness, in public. It will be true from the cosmic point of view, but false from the terrestrial relative mundane third person view.

HOW COMMUTATIONS CAN HAVE ANY CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR OWN  AS DISTINCT FROM CC OR OUT MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS?

Computations are never conscious. But they can support a person (which lives in arithmetic) relativized in a context based on the work of some universal numbers. It is the person which is conscious,not the bodies or the representation in arithmetic per themselves.

> At this place, the theorem of Solovay, which captures the true and the provable discourse of what the machine can prove and conceive about itself (in eventually eight senses), helps to disentangle all the subtleties.

BUT DUD THE THEOREM OF SOLOVAY ARISE OUT OF AND WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? OBVIOUSLY  NO

It arises in the mind on specific Löbian digital number in arithmetic, but also in the mind of physical human beings. There is nothing weird here.

You seem to want to intruse the meta level in the object level. 

>
>
>
> I ADD FURTHER THAT YOU CAN ASSUME 2 PLUS 2 -- 4 SINCE YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF DISCRETE ONTOLOGY OF DIFFERENT TYPES -- 2 TREES, 2 APPLES, 2 PROTONS.
>
>
> Yes, I took the numbers from the empirical reality, and I even took the notion of “if … then … else” from the Lactose Operon (regulator gene) of the bacterium Escherichia Coli. Nature is quite inspiring.
> But, metaphysically, or theologically, I cannot be aware of an ontology. I can only be aware of an experience, or maybe a person. I might wake up in two seconds, and laugh of myself having taken for granted the trees, the appels, and the protons. 

YES, METAPHYSICALLY OR THEOLOGICALLY, YOU MIGHT NOT BE AWARE  OF ANY ONTOLOGY. BUT YOU HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF AN OBJECTIVE PHENOMENAL REALITY OF DISCRETE NATURE COUNTLESS OF TIMES RIGHT FROM THE TEEN AGE, YOU OPENED THR EYES. AS YOU OPENED THE EYES FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN THE BODY OF YOUR MOTHER. SO THE NUMBER 1 MIGHT HAVE ARISEN AS A UNIQUE COGNITIVE THOUGHT IN YOUR  MIND/  CONSCIOUSNESS.THEN AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN ANOTHER  NURSE/AUNTIE IN THE VICINITY OF YOUR MOTHER, NUMBER 2 MIGHT HAVE ORIGINATED IN YOUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS. BUT THIS ARITHMETIC THOUGHT IS UNIVERSAL AND UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THIS ARISES EQUALLY  AND UNIVERSALLY IN ALL SANE LIVING ORGANISMS, AT  LEAST HUMANS. ABOUT ANIMALS, I DON'T  KNOW.

HAD YOU OPENED YOUR EYES IN A VACCINE DEVOID OF ANY OBJECTIVE PHENOMENAL OBJECT ABD PASSED YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IN THAT VACUUM, MIGHT BE NUMBER 1, 2, 3,...COULD NEVER WOULD HAVE TAKEN BIRTH IN YOUR MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS.

I am not sure I understand “objective phenomenal object”. If it is phenomenal, it is first person, or subjective. At most it is first person plural, like with the consequence of mechanism, but also from QM-without-collapse, where populations of machines are duplicated “together” so that they share the first person indeterminacy, making it looking objective but is still subjective. 

> At least, with mechanism, the dreams obeys laws, and it leads to a sort of measurable degrees of relativity.Quantum mechanics seems to confirms we belong to a very solid sharable type of dream. 

I PROPOSE THAT IS NOT THE DREAMS. WHICH OBEYS LAWS. BUT LAWS GOVERNING THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICALITY FIND THEIR EXPRESSION  IN NUMBERS, ARITHMETIC  AND COMPUTATIONS.

I do not assume physicality. If the physics in the head really depart from the observation, then I will consider the possibility of primary matter, but today’s evidences is that there is no discrepancy.

I STOP AT THIS STAGE STAGE SINCE IT HAS ALREADY BECOME TOO LONG AND I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TYPE LONG MESSAGES ON CELLPHONE.

OK, best,

Bruno

VINOD SEHGAL 

> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>  
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>  

> Report Archi To view this discussion on the web visit
> For more options, visit

[Bruno Marchal]

On 7 Mar 2018, at 19:56, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Bruno, for trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality.

[rf]   Not sure, or sure you don't?  We/I/you may be up against  being between a rock and a hard place.  If you notice, I am making what I guess is a primary ontological statement:

"Reality is nested structured~duality". 

This is not claiming a primary _physical_ ontology, which is someone else's, maybe Vinod's, recent phrase hereabouts, but I am  making an ontological statement.    I believe you express that  you don't ~see or ~have any need for ontological substances and, I guess your methodology is to go --Is it?-- just the  epistemological route?

So, it may be that you are not capable of understanding because of your currently developed and pre-existing understanding(s) and investments.  I certainly can relate as I have tried to admit about my lack of logic and abstract math abilities.

I don't know if the following is a fair or accurate projection, but it seems to me that you ~are always making an ontological statement, albeit, perhaps covertly,  along with your other expressions which, paraphrased, sounds like:  "Reality is numbers and math -- or Turing machines and numbers".  Or,  "Reality is knowledge which can only be in the form and terms of numbers and Turing devices"  (Or, +,*,s,0).     So, from my bias, I sort of observe you making the covert ontological statement.  

Your arguments or talking points and approach seem to be set up and well honed for dispelling a (primary) physical ontology, however, not so much  with dismissing a transcendent primary [nested structured~duality] ontology.   

The arithmetical ~realism may give the account for knowledge, but not so much for the unknowns and the new knowledge that first appears via the analog (physical) math.  Transcending at that point illuminates that the numbers stories are and always have been also instance of nested structured~duality.

Clear as mud?

Clear as … nested structured duality.

But I claim nothing. I give you a result. That’s all. I say that if there is no “analog infinities with special magic” operating in the brain, then we don’t need to assume more than a universal machinery, and worst, we cannot assume more, as if we do, we get a super-inflation of histories contradicting the local computability of the physical laws. It raises too much white rabbits, and we can no more predict anything.

OBVIOUSLY NO. SO THE WHOLE CONCEPT  OF THR UNIVERSAL MACHINE ITSELF IS CONSCIOUSNESS  OR MIND BASED AND OUT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS, NEITHER THERE CAN BE THE EXISTENCE  OF ANY NUMBER  NOR. ANY UNIVERSAL MACHINE.

That does not follow. I need my consciousness to believe in the existence of the moon, does not logically entail that without my consciousness the moon does not exist. 

As a scientist, I have no choice than to start on the proposition people agree with, and I start with elementary arithmetic, if only to define precisely what a digital machine is.

[rf Mar 4]  Not that you are necessarily doing it since you do propose some type of epistemological construction and some kind of test, but the general appearance is, after you get through saying one cannot  validly choose "consciousness as primary", it appears you go ahead and assume "arithmetical truth seen by itself" as primary. This step creates  several opportunities for immediate confusion and conflict. 

Also, consider your term: "arithmetical truth seen by itself".   First, my hunch is, Vinod and I and others ~ see it as  "arithmetical truth and/or notions of arithmetical truth as seen by consciousness”.

OK. But it is the consciousness of the universal person canonically attached to the many relative incarnation/implementation in arithmetic.

[rf] Perhaps in your case, but not in mine.  I'm taking one breath at a time and metabolizing my doughnut, generating 10^20 water molecules per second in the process, anticipating what my wife and I will have for lunch.  

But how do you relate that with you experience? You have not yet told me what is the duality in the nested structured duality. You need to try to explain this without using the terms “nested”, nor “duality”. You seem not trying to explain. 

Secondly, though,  look at the statement itself: "arithmetical truth seen by itself".   Yes, just sub-consciously opting for mathematical-like recursions probably seem acceptable particularly as an ad hoc or natural maneuver, but I would ask you to consider the other typical strategy  for resolving knots of this type: some kind of transcendence to a different level of organization. 

Maybe? That is not precise enough, but I would compare this with the nuances on provability/rational-believability imposed by incompleteness.

[rf] Firstly, though, do you catch my drift about the two approaches:  (1) invoke more recursion, or, (2) transcend to a different level of organization and revise the tenets? 

That is a common scheme in programming technic or in AI. Why not, but that is more plumbing than fundamental, unless your theory does assume matter, as this is not yet clear to me.

Both are recursive, but more than that, both are also instances of  an inherent, but until ~now not even provisionally ~formalized or acknowledged (as far as my meager knowledge has it)  as a universal pattern of "nesting" or "nested structure”. 

That is to vague for me. Numbers and recursion is full of nested structure. Recursion by itself is not Turing universal, but recursion needs not much to become Turing universal, and once we get the Turing universality, … God lose control somehow, and lost Itself in the “creation”.

[rf] So, let me get this straight,  recursion and nested structure is pervasive throughout the numbers and relations but in your epistemology you don't need to write that down as one of your constraints  or tenets but you can just invoke it, ad hocly, when  you feel like it?   Is that the type of formalism you are talking about when you "assume mechanism".   Might Nested Structure be missing Statement -1 in your Sane04 introduction?

It would like criticising Einstein because he forget to mention the use of the logical deduction in his presentation. 

Science does not work that way. If you have something interesting to add, by seeing a new relation, leading to some verification possible, by using your notion, then write a paper or communicate the idea. But you need to make your theory precise enough, which you do not seem incline to do. Eventually we will find ourself in a Goethe/newton, or Einstein/bergson fake dispute, I’m afraid.

God may just be being patient and thoughtful.

 People apparently assume such in many instances and resort to transcendence (often un- or sub-consciously)  when the going gets tough, and certainly at points of paradigm transition. 

So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:

p     (truth of arithmetical proposition p)

[]p   (probability)

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible).

Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).

It is testable, because the following:

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible)

… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter. 

[rf] Yes. What you present is clearly an instance  of nested structured~duality.

But, how come that works?   It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name.  

?

[rf] You seem to still be arguing against a physicalist theory of consciousness when what I am saying is the arithmetical ~reality and the physical ~realism  are both instances of nested structured~duality.

If this makes the physicist theory working, then nested structured-duality is logically incompatible with mechanism. It is all I can say.

This thing that I advocate, that reality is nested structured~duality,  to me is a way of asserting that  reality is a "nested" or "hierarchical" system.   That the nesting is a universal feature or principle.  This leads me to sometime accuse the dominant scientific paradigm as being a "non-nested model as a opposed to what I am saying it inherently is as a nested system.   I am aware that we all generally work with various stacks: {physical, metaphysical},  {mathematical, physical, theological,metaphysical...}, [subatomic, atomic, molecular, organic, biologic, species, ecological...} etc.. And these all seem to imply a sort of ad hoc or unconscious acceptable of nesting, which they do.  

You remind me someone defending anti-foundation axiom in set theory. With mechanism, we get the natural nesting provided by the many recursion theorems.

[rf]  "The anti-foundation axiom postulates that each such directed graph corresponds to the membership structure of a unique set. For example, the directed graph with only one node and an edge from that node to itself corresponds to a set of the form x = {x}." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom   

Reading the wikipedia quickly, the thing this jogs in my meager storyline is, for instance, that I sort of hold the impression that ALL tetrahedra formed via four center-to-vertex radii have five multiple states -- borrowing the magnetic markings:  n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.  This "comes about" from the/my original conception of "bipolar polyhedral structures" where the ends of each radii would always be slightly different --imbalanced, dualic, bipolar-- from each other (+/- an electron, or a photon, etc.).  So,  all such members have or are multiple states even if one thinks they only look like/have one state.   

This story seems to insert or re-locate "duality", "multiple states", maybe "quantum increments" into a different level of organization in math or sets.  

I can't tell if that's pro- or anti-foundation.  

Beware Wikipedia. It is often wrong in many subjects (even if quite good on some other subjects). In logic and theoretical computer science, it is not very good, and in philosophy of mind still worst. Here you do the 1004 mistake: using very precise terms in a much to vague context. 

However, at this junction, particularly, in trying to develop a scientific paradigm accounting for  physical and mental artifacts and attributes,  I see the need and advantage to   name  and transcend to the more unified level of organization.  Thus, reality is nested structured~duality.

I would say this for the platonic Noùs, the intellect. The truth above (the One, the cosmic consciousness) is one, and thus not a many (and thus not nested). The nested view of the one is in the many “ideas”, and those ideas are nested in more than one ways.

[rf] One world; many descriptions.  One world; many epistemologies.  Reality is nested structured~duality. Many instances. 

Regarding ~you developing understanding of "assume reality is nested structured~duality”,

I don’t know what you mean by reality. It is the object of inquiry. My method is starting with the hypothesis that our bodies are mechanical, and the results is that the ultimate truth is elementary arithmetic, with the physical given by a mode of self-reference. Making that theory of consciousness testable. To assume reality is a nested structure without saying which one is saying too much general. It is true, but does not lead to testing, at least not that I can figure out from what you say. “Reality” is as much general than “nested structured-duality”. A duality between what and what?

[rf] Well, I appreciate you trying to understand. Like I said, if your covert ontological substance is numbers

I do not assume any ontological substance at all. Numbers are not ontological substance. They are ontological because I take them as primitive.

I could have taken the combinators K, S, (K K), (K S), … instead. The ontology is not important at all, as both consciousness and matter will belongs to the universal <whatever: number, machine, combinator, words…> phenomenological true theology.

and Turing devices, then you would naturally have a conflict trying to conceptualize that arithmetical realism is an instance of the underlying (fundamental) nested structured~duality. 

I think you keep invoking your “god” in a context where science does not allow such invocation. 

I suggest you try to accept it  as a more general form of, and providing a container for  your "assume mechanism" hypothesis, albeit,  since NSD is more general, it contains and describes all hypotheses, theories, models, etc.,  in that each of those artifacts and their descriptions (their ontologies and epistemologies) arise from and invoke and are assessed by the recursive NSD pattern of "pick a structure and pick one or more dualities or distinctions and build additional nested structured~dualities outward, from (those/recent/adjacent) initial (nested structured~duality) conditions".   

In this way, the term: "nested structured~duality"  is or becomes the name or label of the "root class" of reality -- each reality, every reality.    Previously, this  root class was  active and influential and used on an ad hoc basis, but it was also unacknowledged as a universal feature and it was also nameless.  Now it is acknowledged and named.

I am sorry but I do not understand.

[rf] I appreciate you trying.  Maybe it takes a while, you know, to revise or grow new or different cognitive structures. 

BOTH KURT GÖDEL AND EMIL POST WERE ALSO DEPENDENT ON THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS  AND MINDS FOR MAKING  ANY HYPOTHESIS  OR THEOREM INCLUDING THAT OF UNIVERSAL MACHINE. SO YOU CAN'T GET RID OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT ANY STAGE FOR CONCEIVING OR EXISTENCE OF NUMBERS/ARITHMETIC/UNIVERSAL MSCHINE.
> This means that if you are willing to bet that “18 is not a prime number” is true independently of your mundane consciousness then “this or that computation will exist, if it exists, independently of your mundane consciousness.

BUT WITHOUT OUR MUNDANE CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE CAN'T BE THE EXISTENCE OF NO. 
18, LEAVE ALONE THR ISSUE OF IT BEING PRIME OR NOT.

Some insects exploit the primes 13 and 17 for the time of reproduction. Would you say that the prime numbers is a creation of the insects?

[rf] More likely they also have some relevant 12- and 16-unit length polymers involved  in some  packaging that prompt for the appearance of primes triggering from some uninformed observer perspective.  Notice again that you also bring up a composited, entangled math-physical instance or example and then infer you can validly then just erase the physical portion to regain the pre-conceived ~arithmetic realism/platonism.   

Not that that is unhelpful or non-productive tactic.   It's just not the only approach, nor (as the history of mathematics indicates) is it always the absolutely correct one.

I start from what I understand, to put light on what I don’t understand. The mystery I am interested in in the mind-body problem. 

[rf] What is mind? 

Consciousness, all that … A doll will have to say to have a mind when she will get the right to vote …, but probably much before.

The mind is what you live, and with mechanism, the universal mind is what all all universal Turing can live from their first person mode of self-reference.

I am more certain that 18 is not a prime number than I am of any natural laws. I am not sure I can make sense of your doubt here, if any.

You speculate on the existence of “ontologically primary” physical universe, but not only there are no evidence at all (still less proof), but we do have indirect evidence of the contrary (just the living animal and plants bodies, and the quantum mechanics which confirms the startling consequence of computationalism (our infinite self-multiplication at each instant).

[rf] Okay.  But let's say that among all the computationals, there are also some non-computationals, too, analogous, I guess, to prime numbers scattered amid the other  numbers.  What then?   Add another epicycle?  Create another instance of nested structured~duality   and cast it and conceptualize it in terms as an improved version of mathematical realism?

Or, might that be when ~you or other mathematicians might  need to consider  transcending  to a different, more unified  model?

Yes. Until we find a discrepancy with the observable. We learn when our theories are shown wrong, but they have to be enough precise for that.

[rf] ...Within the rules of your methodology. 

That is universal methodology. Yes, my originality is in my extreme conservatism. I apply the scientific method (modesty) to the fundamental (metaphysical theological) domain.

 One discrepancy you apparently already have is working with the tenets of ~your  paradigm, 

The opposite paradigm, non-mechanism, would consist in treating people who got some part of their body replaced by prothetic devices like if they were zombies. That might look as a form of racism.

~you end up with the mind-body anomaly(ies).

That is only a quite honourable antic question, never solved yet, but indeed often put under the rug by “believers” who, very often with “believers” use dogma to hide questions.

You theory might still make some sense with non computaionalist axioms, but well, I still don’t see the theory.

Also, ~you may lack a theory or model of consciousness and even an approximate understanding of reality.   How much proof do you need to try some different paradigmatic tenets?

With pleasure, if I can make sense of them. If not it is just word hiding the mystery. Hope you have no problem with me being franc.

If the brain (not consciousness) was not Turing emulable, you should find something which do not obey to the physical laws in the brain, as the current physical laws are mainly computable (only mathematicians can invent non computable solution of the schroedinger equation, by bringing up a special non computable hamiltonian, for which no evidence exist in nature. Note that classical physics and classical GR are not computable, but once made quantum, they are again computable.

[rf] Which, I understand, means descriptive of, right? 

Descriptive of?

By computable, I mean programmable on a universal number, or a universal machine, or a universal combinators, or (with Church-thesis) just programmable. A computation is a sequence of machine’s state brought by the activity of some universal machine/number.

[rf]  Like when I push buttons on my HP11c and then make out one check to pay two utility bills. The number displayed is descriptive of the sum dollars and cents I owe and I interpret it as that.  When I say "descriptive of", I mean,  the math process generates a number that is descriptive of something and then a person formulates the appropriate interpretation and/or programs it in.

That is because the apps hides the universal machine. The time when we could buy a universal machine, and dialog with it is teminated since long, and when we buy a computer today, we don’t have the book of its specification no more: we directly get simple apps/slaves doing rather simple task, and the poor universal creature is artificially extremely limited, and has virtually no means to refer to itself. 

The theology concerned universal machine self-applied, which asks for one recursion more, which is there, but not exploited, for obvious economical reason.

But yes, computable = programmable = mimickable by any Turing universal number in arithmetic, etc. It is equivalent with the notion of sigma_1 sentence ExP(x) P decidable. A universal machine is essentially a machine which can search for a number having a verifiable property.

After Gödel, we know mainly that we know absolutely nothing about what they are and can do, and not do, but we can know things like the fact that they have a non trivial truth theory (theology).

You need to work out your theory in a more communicable setting to compare your own “theology” with the one by the universal (Löbian, rich enough) machine.

Best Regards,

Bruno

I appreciate you trying to understand reality being nested structured~duality, and your questions and comments.

[Ralph Frost]

Hi, Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and patience. You ask about duality as a fundamental, or, I guess you call such a "primitive".  First, again, I would repeat that the fundamental tenet I assume and point at is "nested structured~duality", not just "duality".  Most everyone complains about my choice of wording. Sorry. It just fits, as I hope you may come to see...

I attempt to convey my sense of "duality" as a fundamental and tell the story of ~how  I first came by it below.   But first, perhaps related but seemingly displaced from our discussion,  in your "assume mechanism" storyline, can you say ~where and ~how, after you start with {+,*,s,0} or the combinators in elementary arithmetic, that "quantum features" emerge or are derived?

[rf] Even though I cling to my physicality I also see that my storyline assumes nested structured~duality  as the "inner structure", so in large part I agree on the last part of your statement, though I'd add the same goes for the mathematical description as well -- along the theme that nested structured~duality   is the underlying common denominator of ~both.

There are many evidence of the Mechanist hypothesis. All known natural laws confirms it (except the wave-packet reduction), but we have also already the indirect consequences: the many-words/histories and the quantum logic of the observable.

[rf] I phrase it as "reality is nested structured~duality", which is the pattern you observed in microbiology and then moreso in mathematics. What is the difficulty with "wave-packet reduction" in your story? Is it not computable?

Any way, I do not defend the truth of mechanism. I am open to its falsity. But the evidences are much more on the side of arithmeticalism than of physicalism. In fact physicists usually do not inquire on metaphysics, and no paper in physics assumes the primary matter of the physicalist metaphysicians, unless they are “believer” of some sort.

[rf] With the Tower of Evidence leaning as it does, toward the unreasonable effectiveness of abstract mathematical descriptions, the next logical question is, "What's underneath this pattern?", which sort introduces the need for a deeper, not just computable-only "science of physical reality and consciousness (mental-mathematics reality".  What error(s) is present in the present paradigm, or what new tenets need to be rolled forward so a new  description ~covers both realms or regions?

I get that ~you and others think arithmetic/mathematics does it and ~you are, methodologically  at the end of the road, sort of like physics was in the late 1800's.

 

THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS  WHETHER OUR CONSCIOUSNESS  SURVIVES DIGITAL SUBSTITUTION  BY A MACHINE OR A COMPUTER  OR NOT?

Indeed, and I could explain why this cannot exist. 

But this is close to obvious, as there is no proof (argument or reason) for its contrary.

IN VIEW OF THIS, ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS  IS AN UTOPIA.

All theories are. We can only count the evidence, and appreciate or not the simplicity and elegance of the theory.

> Then you have to keep in mind a fundamental result in computer science, obtained by those who discovered the universal machine (the mathematical computer). They have eventually understood that the notion of universal machine is not just mathematical, but already arithmetical. In fact Kurt Gödel showed this before, but without realising it. Emil Post also anticipated all this much before.

DID THOSE WHO DISCOVERED THE UNIVERSAL MACHINE OR MATHEMATICAL COMPUTER DISCOVER IT  WITHOUT THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS  OR MIND?

Of course not, and they use paper to publish the result. But you cannot infer validly that this makes consciousness primary or different from the arithmetical truth seen by itself.

[rf Mar 4] I think the distinction I am trying to make is right in this region of your thinking, where I infer, or peer inward through both "consciousness" and "arithmetical truth seen by itself",  and name the underlying commonality: nested structured~duality.

I am not sure I understand.

[rf]   Not sure, or sure you don't?  We/I/you may be up against  being between a rock and a hard place.  If you notice, I am making what I guess is a primary ontological statement:

"Reality is nested structured~duality". 

This is not claiming a primary _physical_ ontology, which is someone else's, maybe Vinod's, recent phrase hereabouts, but I am  making an ontological statement.    I believe you express that  you don't ~see or ~have any need for ontological substances and, I guess your methodology is to go --Is it?-- just the  epistemological route?

So, it may be that you are not capable of understanding because of your currently developed and pre-existing understanding(s) and investments.  I certainly can relate as I have tried to admit about my lack of logic and abstract math abilities.

I don't know if the following is a fair or accurate projection, but it seems to me that you ~are always making an ontological statement, albeit, perhaps covertly,  along with your other expressions which, paraphrased, sounds like:  "Reality is numbers and math -- or Turing machines and numbers".  Or,  "Reality is knowledge which can only be in the form and terms of numbers and Turing devices"  (Or, +,*,s,0).     So, from my bias, I sort of observe you making the covert ontological statement.  

Your arguments or talking points and approach seem to be set up and well honed for dispelling a (primary) physical ontology, however, not so much  with dismissing a transcendent primary [nested structured~duality] ontology.   

The arithmetical ~realism may give the account for knowledge, but not so much for the unknowns and the new knowledge that first appears via the analog (physical) math.  Transcending at that point illuminates that the numbers stories are and always have been also instance of nested structured~duality.

Clear as mud?

Clear as … nested structured duality.

But I claim nothing. I give you a result. That’s all. I say that if there is no “analog infinities with special magic” operating in the brain, then we don’t need to assume more than a universal machinery, and worst, we cannot assume more, as if we do, we get a super-inflation of histories contradicting the local computability of the physical laws. It raises too much white rabbits, and we can no more predict anything.

[rf]  I think you make a long list of assumptions - brain, brain as a rational mechanism, some type of mathematical ontology, and on and on.   And, within your assumptions, no doubt, or probably your logic seems  to hold.  Seemingly, we need only await the testing to think we get an answer, however,  that testing could actually never come.

An alternative, I think, is one like getting an internal representation forged in ordered water that is sort of like a really convenient but mostly disconnected  coincidence, largely, in the layering  of respiration-energy flow, protein-folding-expression, and neurobioelectrophysiological resonances.So, we get a flow of chi in deeply non-computable, and probably more like in wave-packet-reduction-like ways.   But even with the slop, either our gross, generalized approximations, or the unreasonable effective approximations communicate bits and pieces of the pattern. And, of course these are recursive aka, self-referent, etc.

The thing is, I have the probably ineffable impression that ~you are hiding something in ~your extremely complex perhaps even impossible hypothesis.  You can express it in words or logic expressions,  but, in this case,  since ~you pose a model of physical and mental artifacts, you sort of do have to formalize "logical deduction" in your type of model, which exposes your brand of "nesting" or multiple levels of self-reference or recursions, also, as fundamental, or primitive.  Which means you edge closer and closer to acknowledging your own use of the underlying principle of nested structured~duality.

OBVIOUSLY NO. SO THE WHOLE CONCEPT  OF THR UNIVERSAL MACHINE ITSELF IS CONSCIOUSNESS  OR MIND BASED AND OUT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS/MINDS, NEITHER THERE CAN BE THE EXISTENCE  OF ANY NUMBER  NOR. ANY UNIVERSAL MACHINE.

That does not follow. I need my consciousness to believe in the existence of the moon, does not logically entail that without my consciousness the moon does not exist. 

As a scientist, I have no choice than to start on the proposition people agree with, and I start with elementary arithmetic, if only to define precisely what a digital machine is.

[rf Mar 4]  Not that you are necessarily doing it since you do propose some type of epistemological construction and some kind of test, but the general appearance is, after you get through saying one cannot  validly choose "consciousness as primary", it appears you go ahead and assume "arithmetical truth seen by itself" as primary. This step creates  several opportunities for immediate confusion and conflict. 

Also, consider your term: "arithmetical truth seen by itself".   First, my hunch is, Vinod and I and others ~ see it as  "arithmetical truth and/or notions of arithmetical truth as seen by consciousness”.

OK. But it is the consciousness of the universal person canonically attached to the many relative incarnation/implementation in arithmetic.

[rf] Perhaps in your case, but not in mine.  I'm taking one breath at a time and metabolizing my doughnut, generating 10^20 water molecules per second in the process, anticipating what my wife and I will have for lunch.  

But how do you relate that with you experience? You have not yet told me what is the duality in the nested structured duality. You need to try to explain this without using the terms “nested”, nor “duality”. You seem not trying to explain. 

[rf] Try this. Think of 'duality' as a pointer to 'quanta' or 'multiple states', and consider that such quantum features are and must be  inserted first in the foundationation of mathematics (even in arithmetic), rather than as a somewhat magical add-on after a classical, non-quantum, introductory prepi-cycle. In my first pass through this terrain back in 1975-1982 -- in the Bad Old Days, back in the Reagan eras,  I was imagining building a tetrahedron using four rod magnets. With my wife's metal-working help I soldered a center connector together and then played around with the five states of the inner magnetic tetrahedron.   Tetra- implies poly- and inner implies outer, so in a couple of moves on the gameboard I was considering the states of all inner and outer "bipolar polyhedral structures" (bps).  So, if you follow, I upgraded the term from 'bipolar' to 'duality'.  Originally, though, I came around to noticing that even forgetting about magnets and just making a structure out of anything, to my way of thinking there would always be a tiny, maybe what mathematicians might call "infinitesimal difference" between one end (half) of a radii or edge. One half could have a few more electrons or photons or quanta on one half than the other,  So the ends are different, similar to what is overtly present with magnets, but now more subtle, tending to the point of practically indistinguishable.

That's the original meaning/origin of "duality" as in "nested structured~duality", to me.  That's why I sometimes qualify it a "difference", and it could be a difference or duality in many different traits of features.

In the last few weeks, I have remembered that I used to think that ALL structures, even the highly idealized ones, are ~actually 'bipolar polyhedral structures' existing or having multiple states.  That is, that there are not the two categories: {regular, bipolar},  but just the one category: {bipolar}.  

I suspect mathematicians would opt for pure structures being pure and not having the so-called "bipolar' multiple states.  But this, quibble, to me, raises what perhaps may be a fundamental issue in the foundations of mathematics.  This being where and how "quantum features" are acknowledged. 

Seems to me if such quantum features are fundamental or primitive, or however it's termed,  then those features would be inserted/acknowledged as being in the initial step or first phase of all of the mathematical theory/modeling.  And, all of this brings up the issue or question of "nested structure" in terms of  the "proper" ordering of traits and features in the structures of mathematical structures. 

I do not observe this feature is overtly included or considered in ~your "assume mechanism" elementary arithmetic storyline but you do mention arriving at "quantum logic" or having issues with "wave-packet reduction"  later in your presentation.   Also, what do I know about mathematics?  So,  perhaps you can explain the current partyline. 

Over ~here in the weeds in approximate analog math,  in my storyline,  I suppose I might be able to invoke my N+1 rule where the NSD multiple-states of each number N,  equals the count of  N+1, which is also equal to the value of the next closest successor. Thus, visualizing each number as a count of center-to-vertex 'radii', each of which having one-half spin would have N+1 multiple states within itself which sort of means that each number has a representation inside itself ~equal to the value of its successor.  

~This relocates "quantum features" into numbers at, I think, a more fundamental level of organization, giving them (numbers) more of a nested structured~duality  flavor or flare. 

Thoughts?

Secondly, though,  look at the statement itself: "arithmetical truth seen by itself".   Yes, just sub-consciously opting for mathematical-like recursions probably seem acceptable particularly as an ad hoc or natural maneuver, but I would ask you to consider the other typical strategy  for resolving knots of this type: some kind of transcendence to a different level of organization. 

Maybe? That is not precise enough, but I would compare this with the nuances on provability/rational-believability imposed by incompleteness.

[rf] Firstly, though, do you catch my drift about the two approaches:  (1) invoke more recursion, or, (2) transcend to a different level of organization and revise the tenets? 

That is a common scheme in programming technic or in AI. Why not, but that is more plumbing than fundamental, unless your theory does assume matter, as this is not yet clear to me.

[rf] It looks like fundamental plumbing, to me.    I think these two options or methods or techniques sort of gives some empirical evidence of those "analog infinities" that you are concerned about or trying to test for in your highly complex and perhaps un-realizable substitution hypothesis.   They are both productive paths but in certain cases one is more favored than the other and perhaps the participant can only  venture an "I don't know how or why I chose path x. It just happened, pretty much as a guess or a happenstance of the infinity of Forces bearing on my existence. ...It feels like ~God sort of told me."   So, there is evidence of the "analog infinities", even in your own cognitions. 

How creative, but also, very un-machine-like.   

So, let's say you have that sort of proof.  What does that mean or prompt you to describe as the "outcome" in the executive summary of your project report? 

I sort of think that my demonstration of picking a structure and a duality (magnetic tetrahedron) and then getting shearable, conveyable, knowable, demonstrable units of physical intuition on variable mass-density multiple states, [differing in increments of one-half spin, plus, a look and feel model of our and our surroundings sp^3 hybridized multiple states, etc.],  is another instance proving  the analog infinities.

You say you don't understand, certainly, my wordful account or terminology.  But consider the result.   How would it be if I said, "Okay, you caught me, I just guessed that reality is nested structured~duality, and have turned out to be correct. Or correct enough so that in a few months you are beginning to catch on to what I am saying and are observing too many connections to just dismiss it completely, except for no good reason, even though you do not understand how it is or can be possible.  As would be the case with a good demo of AI.

What if you look at the evidence?

Both are recursive, but more than that, both are also instances of  an inherent, but until ~now not even provisionally ~formalized or acknowledged (as far as my meager knowledge has it)  as a universal pattern of "nesting" or "nested structure”. 

That is to vague for me. Numbers and recursion is full of nested structure. Recursion by itself is not Turing universal, but recursion needs not much to become Turing universal, and once we get the Turing universality, … God lose control somehow, and lost Itself in the “creation”.

[rf]  Go back to "once we get the Turing Universality...".  What?  Are you saying recursion has just been assumed? Of is it always working  before getting to Turing, and thus you begin to see all the creeping nested structured~duality?  

Also, when/how does your logic output quantum features, and if these are fundamental/primitive how come they are not evident in the first step? 

[rf] So, let me get this straight,  recursion and nested structure is pervasive throughout the numbers and relations but in your epistemology you don't need to write that down as one of your constraints  or tenets but you can just invoke it, ad hocly, when  you feel like it?   Is that the type of formalism you are talking about when you "assume mechanism".   Might Nested Structure be missing Statement -1 in your Sane04 introduction?

It would like criticising Einstein because he forget to mention the use of the logical deduction in his presentation. 

[rf] No, it's not quite the same because Einstein was puzzling on the mass/gravitation and the energy/matter trans-form-ation   (aka, adjustments in physical nested structured~duality).  If you notice, your paper references sane/ity, and consciousness, and theology, and n-person perspectives. And you are admittedly wrestling with the "mind-body problem".  So in this case the bar is located in a different place than for Einstein and his space-time relativity.  Yes, his contribution brought  relative locations and perspectives more to the fore, as did the wave-particle/quantum imagery, but, no, he remain working with strange clocks and stretchy rulers. 

~You, OTOH, I believe need to dig deeper down through and expose more of the nested structured~duality  supporting the so-called logical deduction.  Along the way I think you need to address when, where and how your model/methods/hypothesis syncs with or acknowledges quantum fundamentals.

Science does not work that way. If you have something interesting to add, by seeing a new relation, leading to some verification possible, by using your notion, then write a paper or communicate the idea.

[rf] What don't you understand about modern-day global communication?  Or, changing the scientific paradigm?    I will try to get my video made and uploaded, real soon, 

 

But you need to make your theory precise enough, which you do not seem incline to do. Eventually we will find ourself in a Goethe/newton, or Einstein/bergson fake dispute, I’m afraid.

[rf] Do you need to bolt?  Just say so.   Particularly if you see the N+1 multiple-states things in ~bps numbers as an account of "duality".    I suppose it is just math, subtraction -- difference, anyway. But I am curious about how all of mathematics inserts or handles the quantum features, if you catch my drift.

God may just be being patient and thoughtful.

 People apparently assume such in many instances and resort to transcendence (often un- or sub-consciously)  when the going gets tough, and certainly at points of paradigm transition. 

So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:

p     (truth of arithmetical proposition p)

[]p   (probability)

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible).

Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).

[rf] Where are the "quantum features" assumed/stated/derived, and how? 

It is testable, because the following:

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible)

… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter. 

[rf] But, and I am asking because I don't know but would like to find out,   by "p restricted to sigma_1 (semi-computable)"  does that mean that you have the fundamental quantum features sort of split off as not so fundamental?   Roughly. Sort of. So, quantum features are NOT actually fundamental or primitive, of however you say it?

If so,  maybe it just a "nesting issue" with your model, but it seems to me that ordering is not actually logical, you know, for being in line with what others think/know.    

[rf] Yes. What you present is clearly an instance  of nested structured~duality.

But, how come that works?   It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name.  

?

[rf] You seem to still be arguing against a physicalist theory of consciousness when what I am saying is the arithmetical ~reality and the physical ~realism  are both instances of nested structured~duality.

If this makes the physicist theory working, then nested structured-duality is logically incompatible with mechanism. It is all I can say.

[rf] Are we making progress?  Did I just say your logic setup isn't logically compatible with empirical fundamentals?    I don't think that what you say follows since the physicist theory, whether working or not, is just an approximation or a series of successive approximations. 

The "advantage" of my terminology is  that  it allows (me, at least) to say, the various instances of NSD (empirical, abstract mathematical, analog, cognitive/observational, non-computational -- maybe you can add your and others' favorites of theological, noospherical, etc., etc.,)  even though various levels of approximate, are all in sync or resonant  ...until they are not.   

But is, say, the inner structures of your logical model really is out of sync with the inner structures (fundamentals) of the empirical model then that instance will have compatibility problems of its own.  IMO.

This thing that I advocate, that reality is nested structured~duality,  to me is a way of asserting that  reality is a "nested" or "hierarchical" system.   That the nesting is a universal feature or principle.  This leads me to sometime accuse the dominant scientific paradigm as being a "non-nested model as a opposed to what I am saying it inherently is as a nested system.   I am aware that we all generally work with various stacks: {physical, metaphysical},  {mathematical, physical, theological,metaphysical...}, [subatomic, atomic, molecular, organic, biologic, species, ecological...} etc.. And these all seem to imply a sort of ad hoc or unconscious acceptable of nesting, which they do.  

You remind me someone defending anti-foundation axiom in set theory. With mechanism, we get the natural nesting provided by the many recursion theorems.

[rf] Imagine that ~you are sort of thinking backwards. The nesting is fundamental and then ~you notice/observe that feature manifesting in many instances. 

[rf]  "The anti-foundation axiom postulates that each such directed graph corresponds to the membership structure of a unique set. For example, the directed graph with only one node and an edge from that node to itself corresponds to a set of the form x = {x}." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom   

Reading the wikipedia quickly, the thing this jogs in my meager storyline is, for instance, that I sort of hold the impression that ALL tetrahedra formed via four center-to-vertex radii have five multiple states -- borrowing the magnetic markings:  n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.  This "comes about" from the/my original conception of "bipolar polyhedral structures" where the ends of each radii would always be slightly different --imbalanced, dualic, bipolar-- from each other (+/- an electron, or a photon, etc.).  So,  all such members have or are multiple states even if one thinks they only look like/have one state.   

This story seems to insert or re-locate "duality", "multiple states", maybe "quantum increments" into a different level of organization in math or sets.  

I can't tell if that's pro- or anti-foundation.  

Beware Wikipedia. It is often wrong in many subjects (even if quite good on some other subjects). In logic and theoretical computer science, it is not very good, and in philosophy of mind still worst. Here you do the 1004 mistake: using very precise terms in a much to vague context. 

[rf] I am afraid I must admit to just getting a feel  on "only one node and an edge from that node to itself " and then imagining that "bipolar radii" having  in-to-out, and out-to-in orientations  leading all to the N+1 multiple states.   It's vague, but it leads to or exposes the question on where/how/when  quantum features are inserted in your math/logic work-up.

[Ralph Frost]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:35:08 AM UTC-5, Ralph Frost wrote:

Hi, Bruno,  and others,

This is Part 2 of prior post which was truncated...  Picking up with....

So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:

p     (truth of arithmetical proposition p)

[]p   (probability)

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible).

Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).

[rf] Where are the "quantum features" assumed/stated/derived, and how? 

It is testable, because the following:

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible)

… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter. 

[rf] But, and I am asking because I don't know but would like to find out,   by "p restricted to sigma_1 (semi-computable)"  does that mean that you have the fundamental quantum features sort of split off as not so fundamental?   Roughly. Sort of. So, quantum features are NOT actually fundamental or primitive, of however you say it?

If so,  maybe it just a "nesting issue" with your model, but it seems to me that ordering is not actually logical, you know, for being in line with what others think/know.    

[rf] Yes. What you present is clearly an instance  of nested structured~duality.

But, how come that works?   It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name.  

?

[rf] You seem to still be arguing against a physicalist theory of consciousness when what I am saying is the arithmetical ~reality and the physical ~realism  are both instances of nested structured~duality.

If this makes the physicist theory working, then nested structured-duality is logically incompatible with mechanism. It is all I can say.

[rf] Are we making progress?  Did I just say your logic setup isn't logically compatible with empirical fundamentals?    I don't think that what you say follows since the physicist theory, whether working or not, is just an approximation or a series of successive approximations. 

The "advantage" of my terminology is  that  it allows (me, at least) to say, the various instances of NSD (empirical, abstract mathematical, analog, cognitive/observational, non-computational -- maybe you can add your and others' favorites of theological, noospherical, etc., etc.,)  even though various levels of approximate, are all in sync or resonant  ...until they are not.   

But if, say, the inner structures of your logical model really is out of sync with the inner structures (fundamentals) of the empirical model then that instance will have compatibility problems of its own.  IMO.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Ralph,

I am now very busy, with teaching most of the time. So I will be shot: try to explain me what you mean by "nested structured~duality”, without using the word “nested”, nor “structured”, nor “duality”, as it is far more too general to me: it fits everything, which is a weakness. 

Try to write a text like if it was a teenager trying to understand. 

Or, if you think this would be incompatible with the mechanist assumption in cognitive science, you might try to explain why.

Best,

Bruno

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/054dbb2b-5d12-45a6-9365-d7ac8ccbf885%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Mar 2018, at 10:04, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:35:08 AM UTC-5, Ralph Frost wrote:

Hi, Bruno,  and others,

This is Part 2 of prior post which was truncated...  Picking up with....

So here, we get the nuances imposed by incompleteness:

p     (truth of arithmetical proposition p)

[]p   (probability)

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible).

Which gives 8 precise modal logics (as three of them split on the incompleteness distinction between truth and rational-justifiability).

[rf] Where are the "quantum features" assumed/stated/derived, and how? 

In my PhD thesis, and in many papers I explain with more details. I reverse a morphism found by Robert Goldblatt between quantum logic and modal logic of the type B. (Main axioms []p -> p, and p -> []<>p (reflexivity and symmetry in the Kripe models).

It is testable, because the following:

[]p & p  (Knowledge, base of consciousness, first person, etc.)

[]p & <>t  (Observable, “bettable”)

[]p & <>t & p  (Sensible)

… must give quantum logics when p is restricted to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) sentences, and indeed we get the quantisation there. The rest is open problems, but this leads to a non physicalist theory of consciousness with a testable theory of matter. 

[rf] But, and I am asking because I don't know but would like to find out,   by "p restricted to sigma_1 (semi-computable)"  does that mean that you have the fundamental quantum features sort of split off as not so fundamental? 

Indeed, the quantum “modal” logic appears only when p is restricted to the semis-computable (Turing universal) realm. As expected, or at least hoped for.

 Roughly. Sort of. So, quantum features are NOT actually fundamental or primitive, of however you say it?

Indeed. The quantum would be the digital seen from inside.

If so,  maybe it just a "nesting issue" with your model, but it seems to me that ordering is not actually logical, you know, for being in line with what others think/know.    

?

[rf] Yes. What you present is clearly an instance  of nested structured~duality.

But, how come that works?   It's a slightly different thing to notice and accept that the reason transcendence works is due to reality BEING nested structured~duality -- to give the feature a name.  

?

[rf] You seem to still be arguing against a physicalist theory of consciousness when what I am saying is the arithmetical ~reality and the physical ~realism  are both instances of nested structured~duality.

If this makes the physicist theory working, then nested structured-duality is logically incompatible with mechanism. It is all I can say.

[rf] Are we making progress?  Did I just say your logic setup isn't logically compatible with empirical fundamentals?    I don't think that what you say follows since the physicist theory, whether working or not, is just an approximation or a series of successive approximations. 

That’s not a problem. We are not doing physics, but theology or metaphysics, asking ourself what is the simpler theory explaining the most, including the nature of consciousness and the many lives.

The "advantage" of my terminology is  that  it allows (me, at least) to say, the various instances of NSD (empirical, abstract mathematical, analog, cognitive/observational, non-computational -- maybe you can add your and others' favorites of theological, noospherical, etc., etc.,)  even though various levels of approximate, are all in sync or resonant  ...until they are not.   

I am a scientist. I need a formula.

But if, say, the inner structures of your logical model really is out of sync with the inner structures (fundamentals) of the empirical model then that instance will have compatibility problems of its own.  IMO.

The goal is exactly to make this testable, and the test up to now shows that it fits, without mentioning this is the natural arithmetical generalisation of Everett’s embedding of the physicists in physics, except here we embed the mathematicians in mathematics. It follows from mechanism + the work of Gödel, Turing, Kleene, etc.

This thing that I advocate, that reality is nested structured~duality,  to me is a way of asserting that  reality is a "nested" or "hierarchical" system.   That the nesting is a universal feature or principle.  This leads me to sometime accuse the dominant scientific paradigm as being a "non-nested model as a opposed to what I am saying it inherently is as a nested system.   I am aware that we all generally work with various stacks: {physical, metaphysical},  {mathematical, physical, theological,metaphysical...}, [subatomic, atomic, molecular, organic, biologic, species, ecological...} etc.. And these all seem to imply a sort of ad hoc or unconscious acceptable of nesting, which they do.  

You remind me someone defending anti-foundation axiom in set theory. With mechanism, we get the natural nesting provided by the many recursion theorems.

[rf] Imagine that ~you are sort of thinking backwards. The nesting is fundamental and then ~you notice/observe that feature manifesting in many instances. 

I am afraid you are under the illusion that one universal system might be chosen at the start.

I reason independently of the choice of the basic Turing universal system.

Either your system is a Turing universal system, and that it can work indeed, as a base, but not as an answer, or it is not, and then I am not sure what it is or can be.

[rf]  "The anti-foundation axiom postulates that each such directed graph corresponds to the membership structure of a unique set. For example, the directed graph with only one node and an edge from that node to itself corresponds to a set of the form x = {x}." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_anti-foundation_axiom   

Reading the wikipedia quickly, the thing this jogs in my meager storyline is, for instance, that I sort of hold the impression that ALL tetrahedra formed via four center-to-vertex radii have five multiple states -- borrowing the magnetic markings:  n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4.  This "comes about" from the/my original conception of "bipolar polyhedral structures" where the ends of each radii would always be slightly different --imbalanced, dualic, bipolar-- from each other (+/- an electron, or a photon, etc.).  So,  all such members have or are multiple states even if one thinks they only look like/have one state.   

This story seems to insert or re-locate "duality", "multiple states", maybe "quantum increments" into a different level of organization in math or sets.  

I can't tell if that's pro- or anti-foundation.  

Beware Wikipedia. It is often wrong in many subjects (even if quite good on some other subjects). In logic and theoretical computer science, it is not very good, and in philosophy of mind still worst. Here you do the 1004 mistake: using very precise terms in a much to vague context. 

[rf] I am afraid I must admit to just getting a feel  on "only one node and an edge from that node to itself " and then imagining that "bipolar radii" having  in-to-out, and out-to-in orientations  leading all to the N+1 multiple states.   It's vague, but it leads to or exposes the question on where/how/when  quantum features are inserted in your math/logic work-up.

They are not inserted. They were predicted and retrieved from the variant ([]p & p, []p & <>t, []p & <>t & p) on the p sigma_1 arithmetic (= the Turing computable realm).

I have published all details, and I have already given the references.

Best,

Bruno

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/708a46bd-988d-4947-8f14-ce65b0708ceb%40googlegroups.com.