Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

36 views
Skip to first unread message

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
May 17, 2019, 2:36:50 PM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Complexity challenges us all, and the few are able to successfully rise to the challenge. For me, the mathematically gifted are indeed a successor species!


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, May 17, 2019 8:34 am
Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


On 15 May 2019, at 17:41, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Some years ago, some astronomer or cosmologist introduced the idea of One Gigantic Universe, but many, many, "domains," which, for me, is the same thing as Everett's-Deutsch's-Tegmark's multiverses. I am not sure if all domains followed the identical laws, or varied, or..?

With mechanism, what exists are the numbers. The (halting) computations are enough for the ontology, and their existence are assured by RA (the weaker Turing universal theory with finitely many axioms).

To compare with physical brother mathematical notion of multiverse remains to be done by the future generations. It is  complex subject. 

Bruno






-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 11:31 am
Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


On 13 May 2019, at 08:55, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:40:12 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



Incompleteness disproves nominalism.  Arithmetical truth was proven not only to be not human defined, but to be not human definable.



(This is something I posted a few days ago in another forum.)

From Joel David Hamkins @JDHamkins - http://jdh.hamkins.org/

"Truths" in the set-theoretic multiverse (slides from a talk last week):



The final slides:

----

The Continuum Hypothesis is settled

On the multiverse perspective, the CH question is settled.
It is incorrect to describe it as an open question.

The answer consists of our detailed understanding of how the
CH both holds and fails throughout the multiverse, of how these
models are connected and how one may reach them from each
other while preserving or omitting certain features.

Fascinating open questions about CH remain, of course, but the
most important essential facts are known.

Ultimately, the question becomes: do we have just one
mathematical world or many

----

Mathematics is a language - with multiple dialects.

         Each dialect of mathematics has its own syntax (to some extent) and semantics!

If it has a semantic, it is not just a language, there is a reality/model/semantic, and we have to distinguish languages and possible theories on that reality.

It is obvious (for a mathematical logician) that there are many mathematical worlds, but like in physics, this does not interfere with realism, on the contrary. Now, I use only arithmetical realism, on which everybody agree. The standard arithmetical truth is definable with a bit of set theory, on which most people agree (as it is the intersection of all models of the theories RA or PA). That is as acceptable as any theorem in analysis. With Mechanism, Analysis, and physics, remains full of sense, but have became phenomenological. 





There is no settled "truth" in mathematics.

For example (as Hamkins shows) the CH is true in one dialect (of set theory) and false in another.

That was shown by Cohen and Gödel.

Interestingly, ZFC and ZF + CH does not prove more arithmetical propositions than ZF alone. The arithmetical truth is totally independent of the axiom of choice or the continuum hypotheses.

Now, ZF proves much more theorems in arithmetic than PA, which proves much more than RA. 

Bruno




@philipthrift


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ca3480-cdf1-426b-9f38-404bc2fa1550%40googlegroups.com.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07CE2D6F-E36D-45E6-883E-E9A13C4812B3%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1625287452.1090267.1557934879733%40mail.yahoo.com.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A5D9E29B-A79F-45C8-9D1E-31CFFA718EBF%40ulb.ac.be
.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 21, 2019, 6:04:24 AM5/21/19
to Everything List
What about color red ?

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 21, 2019, 10:40:43 AM5/21/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

What about color red ?

As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) that a weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.

With mechanism, the ontology is very simple, any universal machinery can be used. I use the numbers because everyone is familiar with them. I often use combinators with more advanced students, as their Turing universality is less lengthy to prove. I made a thread on the mathematics of combinators recently.

Bruno



On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:

With mechanism, what exists are the numbers.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 22, 2019, 6:19:21 AM5/22/19
to Everything List
Derive here from addition and multiplication the color red.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 22, 2019, 1:05:11 PM5/22/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 May 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Derive here from addition and multiplication the color red.

“Derive” here is ambiguous.

If you mean literally to derive the colour red from addition and multiplication, then you ask me something impossible. Yet, what I can show is that impossibility is already derivable by the universal (Löbian, rich) machine.

The first thing consists in deriving the existence of the universal machines in arithmetic, but that was entirely done in Gödel 1931. He missed the universal machine, but the followers will not miss it (and Emil Post saw it 10 years before).

Just some details, to give you the idea how that is possible. 

The harder step is deriving first the exponentiation from addition and multiplication. Gödel used a famous idea in Number theory, sometimes called the Chinese Lemma. It is modular arithmetic, which already alone have a Babbage gear wheel universal machine. See Gödel 1931, or any textbook in mathematical logic.

Once you have exponentiation, as I have explained recently, you can derive faithful (isomorphic) representation of finite sequences of numbers, in term of addition and multiplication.

From this you can imagine that we can represent simple known Turing universal machine, and indeed all this is “well known” in this domain.

Then, to please Brent, and invoking the environment, and using a physical computer , I will follow the shorter way to the colour red, by training a neural net to recognise colour, and notably the colour red. 

Now the difficult step: the neural net has to be largely re-entrant. It a neural in a torus, with still some entry, facing the colored objects. I need this to make the neural net Löbian, he trains itself on itself.

All this has been done by the physical computers, which implement a digital universal machine, whose existence is a theorem of arithmetic. 

In the theory given by the Löbian machine itself, the qualia red has the property to be experientially obvious, but not belonging to the 3p describable type.

The experience itself cannot be attached to any of its number theoretical implementation, but to all of them. That infinities and the unavoidable redundance, including the necessity of long and deep histories, play a role in stabilising the histories. For us “red” has many connotations, if only because it is the color of blood. Most plausibly the qualia of “red” of the simple arithmetical toroidal neural net above is quite dissimilar to our, so I don’t claim having capture the human red qualia. For this one, the numbers will be a the relative representations of yourself in arithmetic, which exists (an infinity) when we assume the digital Mechanist hypothesis.

But even without the mechanist hypothesis, it is a theorem that the Löbian machine can understand that they can’t prove to anyone that they are conscious, or that they have qualia. 

Above the universal treshold you are confronted to the non provable, the non controllable, or insecurity, and a Lobian machine is mainly a universal machine who knows that she is universal, and she knows the price, and that price is notably that 99,9% of her accessible truth are not communicable, nor describable. But then that is why there is art, music and poets. 

Bruno







On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 17:40:43 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 May 2019, at 12:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

What about color red ?

As I just explained they belong to the phenomenology of numbers, which is derivable from the addition and multiplication laws, which lead already to Turing universality, and to the theology of the Löbian numbers (like PA) that a weaker theory (RA) emulates integrally.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 23, 2019, 4:28:20 AM5/23/19
to Everything List
I don't understand anything from what you are saying. Probably you are just too smart that few people can understand you. I hope that is the case, and not the second option in which you just randomly say fancy words just to impress people.


On Friday, 17 May 2019 21:36:50 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
May 23, 2019, 5:14:43 AM5/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing ? What do you expect to gain being rude ?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7edc2c89-d2b2-46f7-93e7-cd12e3ad586f%40googlegroups.com.


--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 23, 2019, 12:39:42 PM5/23/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 May 2019, at 11:14, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you able to discuss without insulting people every email you're writing ? What do you expect to gain being rude ?

Yes, it is bit distracting. It is not even clear to whom the insult are addressed.

Cosmin, ask question, it is simpler that way. You can read the papers also.

Bruno


Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 25, 2019, 6:11:40 AM5/25/19
to Everything List
Do you understand what Bruno is talking ? Being frank with people is not insulting. I'm sorry that you are indoctrinated to be politically correct, smiling in front of people and talking bad about them from behind. Me, not being indoctrinated, I tell people exactly what is to be told. So, I ask again: Do you understand what Bruno is talking ?

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 25, 2019, 6:12:35 AM5/25/19
to Everything List
I told you: The definition of a number is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. If you start seeing number as being alive, then you have a problem.

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
May 25, 2019, 6:21:19 AM5/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Obviously, you can't. I'm sorry for you.

Bye

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3aa68f6e-8d26-4310-89d1-ad4a345bdcba%40googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 25, 2019, 9:12:15 AM5/25/19
to Everything List
You didn't answer the question (probably the politically correctness indoctrination is keeping you from telling the truth): Did you understand what Bruno is talking about ?

howardmarks

unread,
May 25, 2019, 1:19:49 PM5/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the work of Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's test for human-like intelligent behavior manifestations (of computers, machines) with the halting issue being whether it's possible to discover whether an "intelligent" machine will, at some point, halt or run "forever."
cheers! Howard Marks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Telmo Menezes

unread,
May 25, 2019, 2:25:21 PM5/25/19
to Everything List
This mailing list has been going on for decades now. Bruno's ideas have been discussed a lot along the years, as well as other's. Unfortunately we do not have any central source to get you up to speed, but there are at least two books you can take a look at. One is the one that brought me here, a long time ago:


The other is this one:


You can also ask questions. We might be a bit weird around here, but we are mostly serious people with a multitude of opinions and ongoing debates that, in some instances, span decades. I found a lot of exciting and though-provoking ideas on this list, that I had not considered before.

Cheers,
Telmo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 26, 2019, 7:48:52 AM5/26/19
to Everything List
See ? You don't understand anything from what Bruno is saying. You only spot the word "Turing", you also heard about the "Turing test", and you shallowly concluded that that is what Bruno is talking about. No. He is talking about all kinds of weird stuff, like numbers that are alive.

But of course, people always want to show how smart they are, that's why they play the "Of course I understand!!!" card. Sorry, this doesn't work with me. I'm too smart to be tricked by such cheap tricks.

So let's wait for Bruno to tell us how are numbers alive.

howardmarks

unread,
May 26, 2019, 11:56:17 AM5/26/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
You are smarter than all of us, Cosmin!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 26, 2019, 3:06:17 PM5/26/19
to Everything List


It is ironic that Alan Turing himself thought that actual computing in the universe included (to a large extent)  non-Turing computing (where "Turing" here means what became the standard definition as being carried out by the commonly-defined "Turing machine"). That "computing" became synonymous with "Turing-machine computing" can't be blamed on Alan Turing.



Alan Turing
HIS WORK AND IMPACT

Edited by
S. BARRY COOPER
University of Leeds, UK
and
JAN VAN LEEUWEN
Utrecht University, The Netherlands

2013


Aaron Sloman absolves Turing of —
The Mythical Turing Test 


In his 1950 paper, Turing described his famous ‘imitation game’, defining a test that he thought machines would pass by the end of the century. It is often claimed that Turing was proposing a test for intelligence. I think that assumption is mistaken (a) because Turing was far too intelligent to propose a test with so many flaws, (b) because his words indicate that he thought it would be a silly thing to do, and (c) because there is an alternative, much more defensible, reading of his paper as making a technological prediction, whose main function was to provide a unifying framework for discussing and refuting some common arguments against the possibility of intelligent machines.1 I shall try to explain (i) why the common interpretation of Turing’s paper is mistaken, (ii) why the idea of a test for intelligence in a machine or animal is misguided, and (iii) why a different sort of test, not for a specific machine or animal, but for a genome or generic class of developing systems, would be of greater scientific and philosophical interest. That sort of test was not proposed by Turing, and is very different from the many proposed revisions of Turing’s test, since it would require many instances of the design allowed to develop in a variety of environments. to be tested. That would be an experiment in meta-morphogenesis, the topic of my paper in Part IV of this volume.


@philipthrift

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 27, 2019, 6:02:24 AM5/27/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 25 May 2019, at 12:12, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I told you: The definition of a number is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. If you start seeing number as being alive, then you have a problem.

Yes, number are not alive, nor machine, nor brains, no piece of matter, nor anything finite, actually.

But number can be involved in relation making computations definable in arithmetic. In fact, very elementary arithmetic has been shown to be Turing universal. So, whatever you can do with a computer (a digital universal machine, implemented in a physical reality) can be done, and *is* done, in the arithmetical reality. You can see the arithmetical reality as a block mindscape: it emulates all the dreams (including the waking experiences), which explains why we have to recover the physical reality appearance from the statistics on all computations (which are purely arithmetic object, even when implemented in a continuum or in a physical reality).

The first proof that Arithmetic is Turing Universal is already in Gödel’s paper of 1931. Gödel did not understood this, because he remained skeptical that his definition of computation was general enough to define all computations possible, but eventually he will be convinced on this when reading the 1936 paper by Kleene.

The fact that the notion of computation is purely arithmetical is typically “very well known” by mathematical logicians, but basically not understood by non-logicians. Yet, it is not difficult to prove, although it is rather tiedous, as it is like programming with a very low level assembly language.

Such facts are prove in all details in good textbook, like Eliot Mendelson’s introduction to Mathematical Logic, or the classical 1952 book by Kleene “Introduction to Metamathematics”. But see also the Dover book “computability and unsolvablity” by Martin Davis, which is a cheap dover book, with an appendix proving Matiyasevitch proof that not only computation is arithmetic, but it is even polynomial (with diopahnatine polynomial were we search the integer or natural number solution, and the coefficient of the polynomials are integers).

Ask any question for more explanation,

Bruno




On Thursday, 23 May 2019 19:39:42 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Cosmin, ask question, it is simpler that way. You can read the papers also.

Bruno


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 27, 2019, 4:27:12 PM5/27/19
to Everything List
Are you aware of Roger Penrose writings about non-computable phenomena ?

On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
computation

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 27, 2019, 4:32:24 PM5/27/19
to Everything List
I'm not necessarily smarter as I am honest. When I look at the phenomenology of consciousness and I see certain things, I cannot then lie to myself that I haven't seen those things. If I had countless telepathies and precognitions especially in relations to loved ones, I cannot then lie that they were only "coincidences". Maybe you simply never loved anyone. This is the best explanation that I can find. Otherwise, you would have known that the experiences that you would have had in relation to the loved ones were not merely "coincidences". You cannot lie to yourself when you have a dream with your parents in hospital and then next morning find out that they were hospitalized, that it was only just a "coincidence".

So all I can say to you is: go out-there and love people. Stop playing the "serious materialist dude" card. It's pitiful.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 27, 2019, 4:39:51 PM5/27/19
to Everything List
Also, another question would be: What is your view on time ? Do computations happen in time or does time emerges out of atemporal computations ?


On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 28, 2019, 7:00:17 AM5/28/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 27 May 2019, at 22:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Are you aware of Roger Penrose writings about non-computable phenomena ?

Yes. But non computable phenomena is exactly what all machines are confronted with, and indeed, Mechanism enforced both consciousness and matter to be not computable.

To add special sort of non computability, like a wave-reduction in quantum mechanics, is like adding magic marmelade to dismiss a theory which already explains why non-computability is made obligatory with the Mechanist hypothesis.

Then Penrose first argument is just non valid. He corrected it in his second best seller, but he did not take into account his own correction in the philosophical consequences.

But Penrose general idea, like the “theory” defended by Philip Thrift, is consistent with mechanism: if matter exists ontologically, then indeed we cannot be supported by Digital Machine. 

Bruno





On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
computation


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 28, 2019, 7:02:58 AM5/28/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 27 May 2019, at 22:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I'm not necessarily smarter as I am honest. When I look at the phenomenology of consciousness and I see certain things, I cannot then lie to myself that I haven't seen those things. If I had countless telepathies and precognitions especially in relations to loved ones, I cannot then lie that they were only "coincidences". Maybe you simply never loved anyone. This is the best explanation that I can find. Otherwise, you would have known that the experiences that you would have had in relation to the loved ones were not merely "coincidences". You cannot lie to yourself when you have a dream with your parents in hospital and then next morning find out that they were hospitalized, that it was only just a "coincidence".

So all I can say to you is: go out-there and love people. Stop playing the "serious materialist dude" card. It's pitiful.

I sent you my comments by telepathy.

Bruno





On Sunday, 26 May 2019 18:56:17 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
You are smarter than all of us, Cosmin!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 28, 2019, 7:08:54 AM5/28/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 27 May 2019, at 22:39, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Also, another question would be: What is your view on time ? Do computations happen in time or does time emerges out of atemporal computations ?


Subjective time emerges from atemporal computations. Physical time appears as physicality itself emerges as a subjective first person plural phenomenon, but, a bit like in Loop-Gravity, the physical time is not a thing per se, but comes from the indexical nature of the relative self in arithmetic.

Note that arithmetic implements directly a digital elementary of time, by the order on the natural number, which is eminently an arithmetic notion (x < y === Ez(x+z = y)). That is the time used by the notion of computational step in the arithmetical computations. Of course that is an atemporal notion of time, and it is enough (apparently) to explain many different notion of phenomenological time. In fact the logic of the first person ([]p & p, S4Grz) is typically a logic of time, or better, of subjective duration, rather close to Brouwer and Bergson.

Bruno




On Monday, 27 May 2019 13:02:24 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Ask any question for more explanation,


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages