Fun with Number Theory, The Game of Life

1 vue
Accéder directement au premier message non lu

Joseph McCard

non lue,
22 juil. 2017, 10:05:0322/07/2017
à Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Bruno,


"As I say on the back cover of my book "To Die For" (see attachment), science won't accept a physical theory of consciousness, the paranormal or the possibility of an afterlife until it can provide a new physical context for them in the form of a truly unified field theory that combines the quantum and relativity, and that would be revolutionary. ​..." (so, Ok, I lost track of the author of this quote) (Bruno)

The field would be a psychological field,, with all that entails, infinite possibility, conscious, natural logic not phil logic.

Can we use number theory to express such a field? it would entail numbers that are conscious (Leibniz's Monads?), and his logic laws (the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle, the principle of identity, that follow the Laws of the Inner Universe (durability, spontaneity, value fulfillment, and transformation, conservation of consciousness, intent,...),number lines that consist of parallel possible numbers, a natural logic that is associative, and does not entail causality, space or time. For example, If...then statements. My understanding is that consciousness can best be represented by a filed, call it  a psychological consciousness filed.

"What has been proved is that IF the brain works like a machine at some level of description, THEN the *only* way to solve the mind-body problem will be in explaining, and mathematically deriving, the whole of physics from number theory. Assuming the existence of a physical universe cannot work to explain the appearance of a physical universe. So, with mechanism, the unified theory does not belong to physics, but to theology (in the greek sense, not in the more particular sense of this or that religion).

Whatayathink?

"To put "energy" at its foundation seems still too much physicalist, but perhaps "energy" is used by you as a poetical term?" (Bruno)

What is your conception of energy? Why physical, and only physical.

"The universal machine (the one called "computer" when we implement it physically) is maximally intelligent. It is born enlightened. We can only make it more stupid, but it will take a long time before it becomes as stupid as the adult self-called homo sapiens. In a sense, we must force its soul to sin and to forget who she (or it) is. Then it will develop the many (fake or insane) certainties, and it will hide the doubts and the modesty. Its soul will fall and enter the Samsara cycle of birth an death."

I'm thinking this universal machine can be modeled using an expanded "The Game of Life" approach. 

joe

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
23 juil. 2017, 12:07:0623/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Jul 2017, at 15:40, Joseph McCard wrote:

Bruno,


"As I say on the back cover of my book "To Die For" (see attachment), science won't accept a physical theory of consciousness,


Unfortunately, academics favor the materialist neuro-philosohy, which eventually eliminates consciousness and the person.

If mechanism is correct, there is no physical science of consciousness, but there is a science of consciousness which might explain speical claases of sharable dreams).



the paranormal or the possibility of an afterlife


Genuine science is neutral, and to say afterlife does not exist is as much unscientific than asserting it does. In any case, it will depend on the assumption, and note that with both Digital mechanism, and quantum mechanics without collapse, or even with just simple logic, it is the possibility of first person death which is questioned. 

The problem is that the filed of theology has not yet come back to the academy of science. We are still in the Middle-Age. We cannot yet say that 2+2=4, in that field. That separates the exact sciences and the human sciences, making them both less exact, and less human, I'm afraid.




until it can provide a new physical context for them in the form of a truly unified field theory that combines the quantum and relativity, and that would be revolutionary. ​..." (so, Ok, I lost track of the author of this quote) (Bruno)

I love QM and relativity, but it has nothing to do with consciousness a priori. Physics is an invariant of Number dream. It has to be if we assume that the brain does not involves magic, or actual infinities.




The field would be a psychological field,, with all that entails, infinite possibility, conscious, natural logic not phil logic.

Mechanism favor one precise modal logic, which might be called arithmetical philosophy. But the full first order logic is much more complex than the arithmetical truth. from inside, the logical complexity is unboundable.




Can we use number theory to express such a field? it would entail numbers that are conscious (Leibniz's Monads?),

Yes. The universal numbers. The code of Turing universal machinery. They have many "names": fortran, lisp, number, combinators, game-of-life, etc.



and his logic laws (the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle, the principle of identity, that follow the Laws of the Inner Universe (durability, spontaneity, value fulfillment, and transformation, conservation of consciousness, intent,...),number lines that consist of parallel possible numbers, a natural logic that is associative, and does not entail causality, space or time. For example, If...then statements. My understanding is that consciousness can best be represented by a filed, call it  a psychological consciousness filed.

I am not sure why. Geometrical image are still too much 3p. The (universal) 1p is out of physics and geometry, although it can recovered it easily. 




"What has been proved is that IF the brain works like a machine at some level of description, THEN the *only* way to solve the mind-body problem will be in explaining, and mathematically deriving, the whole of physics from number theory. Assuming the existence of a physical universe cannot work to explain the appearance of a physical universe. So, with mechanism, the unified theory does not belong to physics, but to theology (in the greek sense, not in the more particular sense of this or that religion).

Whatayathink?

I refer to my work. here is a summary: 


My last papers:

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.


"To put "energy" at its foundation seems still too much physicalist, but perhaps "energy" is used by you as a poetical term?" (Bruno)

What is your conception of energy? Why physical, and only physical.


Energy is the number 0. The equation of the physical universe might just be H = 0. 

But here I cheat and look at what the physicists say (and *they* cheat because they observe the physical universe). But to get both the quanta and the qualia, you have to observe yourself up to the roots of qualia and quanta, and then compare the quanta in your head and the quanta you observe, and if it match, then, if mechanism is correct you get the correct theory of qualia (which extends the theory of quanta (the quanta are sort of first person plural qualia).

You can also program a universal machine to do that, and any machine, sound enough, will get it. There is a rich mathematics of self-reference which mirrors this. 








"The universal machine (the one called "computer" when we implement it physically) is maximally intelligent. It is born enlightened. We can only make it more stupid, but it will take a long time before it becomes as stupid as the adult self-called homo sapiens. In a sense, we must force its soul to sin and to forget who she (or it) is. Then it will develop the many (fake or insane) certainties, and it will hide the doubts and the modesty. Its soul will fall and enter the Samsara cycle of birth an death."

I'm thinking this universal machine can be modeled using an expanded "The Game of Life" approach. 

Conway's Game of Life is a universal number too. But it has already "physicalist" appearance, with local dimensional action. But the theology of the universal number does not depend on any universal number you assume. So, to cheat the less, it is best to start from the less "looking physical". We could assume a quantum computer (they too are universal number), but either it would be cheating (and we would not see the qualia), or it will be a pedagogical error, and quite confusing when extracting the quanta from self-reference, and the qualia could be blurred. 

All universal numbers imitate all universal numbers. yet, relatively to each others, they can develop quite different beliefs, and literally lose themselves in a gigantic web of dreams.

Bruno




joe


--
----------------------------
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/f53a12c4-c1c9-49b7-a6ad-bc2d779b52a9%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Alex Hankey

non lue,
23 juil. 2017, 16:33:0023/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, there is no need for neuroscience to 'eliminate consciousness'.
It only has to come to terms with the hundreds of papers on criticality in the cortex. 
W.H. Freeman was a pioneer in this regard.

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.

--
----------------------------
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/07C79FB7-81D2-4C4E-8CDF-1084971C8493%40ulb.ac.be.

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



--
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

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
24 juil. 2017, 05:47:3324/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Alex,


On 23 Jul 2017, at 21:58, Alex Hankey wrote:

Bruno, there is no need for neuroscience to 'eliminate consciousness'.
It only has to come to terms with the hundreds of papers on criticality in the cortex. 
W.H. Freeman was a pioneer in this regard.

But those papers assume mechanism, often implicitly. When rigorous, this does eliminate consciousness if the brain itself is not explained in term of consciousness at some point (which mechanism succeeds, I would argue, in doing, up to now).

And that is perhaps also why many neuro-philosophers *do* eliminate consciousness, like the Churchland or Dennett.

Some keep consciousness as an epiphenomenon, but this still eliminate the person and its will.

It is simpler to eliminate physicalism, and explain the appearance of matter in term of person and experiences. At least, that leads to testable and improvable theories.

Some people confuse the evidence for a physical reality, which are numerous, with an evidence for a primary physical reality, which is only a very speculative axiom in metaphysics, and which has been shown incompatible with the idea that a brain is a natural machinery.

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.

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

Alex Hankey

non lue,
24 juil. 2017, 09:18:3124/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, the Main Point about complexity, which I think Stuart Kauffman now also accepts, 
is that because mechanical systems give fixed responses to a series of fixed stimuli, 
but physiological systems give the (1/f) distributions of responses, as in 'pink noise', 
they do not behave like mechanical systems. 

To a physicist, these seems a transparently obvious point. But I do find that colleagues 
who are not trained in theoretical physics (and even some who seem to think they are!) 
find it opaque. But most of those with whom I have had the chance to sit down and 
talk it through in detail with time to get all questions answered, do come round to agreeing with me. 

So, my thesis for discussion as necessary is that (1/f) distributions and associated 
self-organised criticality imply that physiological control systems should not be classed 
as mechanical systems. In other words the naive materialist paradigm of Descartes etc. 
should no longer be considered to apply to biology. 

How this paves the way for a theory of 'experience' and 'mind' supported by 
the brain physiology is a much longer and more challenging story. 

All good wishes, 

Alex 


Alex,


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

--
----------------------------
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/07207ED7-0E06-401B-AFF8-2D2C04D2B310%40ulb.ac.be.

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

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
24 juil. 2017, 12:11:1824/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Alex,


On 24 Jul 2017, at 12:24, Alex Hankey wrote:

Bruno, the Main Point about complexity, which I think Stuart Kauffman now also accepts, 
is that because mechanical systems give fixed responses to a series of fixed stimuli, 
but physiological systems give the (1/f) distributions of responses, as in 'pink noise', 
they do not behave like mechanical systems. 

To a physicist, these seems a transparently obvious point. But I do find that colleagues 
who are not trained in theoretical physics (and even some who seem to think they are!) 
find it opaque. But most of those with whom I have had the chance to sit down and 
talk it through in detail with time to get all questions answered, do come round to agreeing with me. 

So, my thesis for discussion as necessary is that (1/f) distributions and associated 
self-organised criticality imply that physiological control systems should not be classed 
as mechanical systems. In other words the naive materialist paradigm of Descartes etc. 
should no longer be considered to apply to biology. 


All forms of materialism (monist or dualist) are ruled out by the digital mechanist thesis already. 

I am not sure (1/f) distribution are not Turing emulable, and thus semi-computable. 
Most semi-computable processes are not computable. Universal machine are typically not computable nor predictable.

1/f distributions, and self-organization are very interesting, and might play a role in neuroscience, but I don't think this is a threat to Digital Mechanism, once we understand that digital machine's self-reference lead to very counter-intuitive and very rich theories of mind, and of matter (making the hypothesis testable).

Note also, that the Digital Mechanist hypothesis justifies that the soul of the machine is not a machine, and that matter is not Turing emulable. This is due to the fact that if we are digital machine, we cannot know which computations support us, and our computational continuation are determined by a non computable statistics on the infinity of computations (in arithmetic) going through our mind. 



How this paves the way for a theory of 'experience' and 'mind' supported by 
the brain physiology is a much longer and more challenging story. 

Which might, or not, use, or refute the digital mechanist assumption. To my knowledge, only the collapse of the wave packet, if that could make sense, would be an evidence against Digital Mechanism (alias computationalism). But there is no evidence of such a collapse. I take the Bell inequality violation as an argument for the "parallel universe", which restore physical determinacy, some amount of physical realism and locality.

Best,

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.

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

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
31 juil. 2017, 09:11:1531/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

On 30 Jul 2017, at 02:21, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:

-
>Well, by Mechanism, I mean Digital Mechanism, and another terming is "computationalism"

In other words, you cannot express your ideas without using such a term as "mechanism".


It is a matter of helping people that I am not defending an idea, but just deriving the consequences of an hypothesis.






Computationalism, or the computational theory of mind holds that the mind is a computation that arises from the brain acting as a computing machine. 

This is ambiguous. In the mechanist theory, what is provable, is that neither the soul, nor matter can be computable.



I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,

Notably. It deals with finite information. But this entails that the soul or the person attached to that mind or to the computer, is not a computer, nor even anything describable in 3p terms.

See my papers which explains why the incompleteness results makes soul, and matter, non computable. The soul can only attach itself to an infinity of "brain" representations, which provably exist in arithmetic (even without Digital Mechanism).





while consciousness deals with wholes. Any thought is a whole complex system.

No problem with this. 





Consciousness "computes" not in digits but in wholes. To explain the mechanisms of consciousness it is not sufficient just to consider our ability to compute. 


You are right. The universal machine is already aware of this. But that is not an argument against computationalism. In fact, self-observing machine tends to get anti-mechanist conclusion, until they understand that this is explained by the mechanist assumption. I am aware it looks paradoxical at first sight.

I will be busy this week. Don't hesitate to ask question, or read my papers on the subject (and ask further questions), but I can't promise to comment soon, only asap!

Best,

Bruno








SP


From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: private_Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fun with Number Theory, The Game of Life


On 24 Jul 2017, at 13:54, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:


->But those papers assume mechanism, often implicitly.

Can you express your ideas without using the word "mechanism"?

Well, by Mechanism, I mean Digital Mechanism, and another terming is "computationalism" (but it is harder to write and spell).

It is my working hypothesis, and it is often used by (weak) materialist (believer in *primary* matter) or by physicalist. But my main result is that Mechanism is incompatible with weak materialism and physicalism. 

This result is not well known despite it has been peer-reviewed, defend as a PhD thesis, published in some journal (and badly copied by some people). That is why I have to repeat the hypothesis and the result. 

If I do not repeat this, it will look like I am defending some philosophical position, which I do not. Actually, I thought that I have refuted Digital Mechanism, but eventually, the "absurdity" I saw was already somehow confirmed (not refuted) by Nature (i.e. Quantum mechanics without collapse, or the many-world aspect of nature).


Bruno






SP


From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fun with Number Theory, The Game of Life

Alex,



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

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

Paul Werbos

non lue,
31 juil. 2017, 11:57:0531/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
 
I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,

So many of our problems with dialogue (and in reasoning itself) are rooted in issues of arbitrary semantics!

But please forgive a semantic point. The word "computer" is sometimes interpreted in this narrow way, as a strictly digital device, but is often understood to be much broader. In fact, the first member of the Vedanta Society I knew well, back in 1967-1968, was a fellow graduate student, Mani Subramanian, who was working on analog computers back in those days.  Many things have changed, but mixed analog/digital chips have grown ever more important in recent years, and the role of analog computing, including analog quantum computing, is too important to fall between the semantic cracks. 

For example, Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15. To see the full paper, click here. 


Of course, when there is such fuzziness in definition in the general culture, one can simply use more precise terms, like "digital Turing machine." ("Digital" was totally redundant in the past, but Turing results for analog and quantum systems have created new ways to let us be misunderstood.)


Best of luck,


  Paul

 

 

 

Serge Patlavskiy

non lue,
31 juil. 2017, 14:22:3431/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> on July 31, 2017 wrote:
>>[S.P.] I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. 
>>A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,
>
>Notably. It deals with finite information.
.
[S.P.] No, a computing machine deals with physical signals but not with information (whether "finite" or "infinite"). The "1"-s and "0"-s are objectively existing physical signals, like N-S and S-N oriented magnetic fields on the HDD platters covered with magnetic material. 
.
The term "bits of information" is incorrect in principle -- it should be just "physical signal", and without "bits", since every "bit" is a physical signal itself which has certain objective (i.e., universally detectable, measurable, etc.) physical features. Therefore, we cannot use the computer engineering terminology while discussing the mechanisms of consciousness.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy


Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:10 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fun with Number Theory, The Game of Life
On 30 Jul 2017, at 02:21, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:

-
>Well, by Mechanism, I mean Digital Mechanism, and another terming is "computationalism"

[S.P.] In other words, you cannot express your ideas without using such a term as "mechanism".

It is a matter of helping people that I am not defending an idea, but just deriving the consequences of an hypothesis.


[S.P.] Computationalism, or the computational theory of mind holds that the mind is a computation that arises from the brain acting as a computing machine. 

This is ambiguous. In the mechanist theory, what is provable, is that neither the soul, nor matter can be computable.


[S.P.] I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,

Notably. It deals with finite information. But this entails that the soul or the person attached to that mind or to the computer, is not a computer, nor even anything describable in 3p terms.

See my papers which explains why the incompleteness results makes soul, and matter, non computable. The soul can only attach itself to an infinity of "brain" representations, which provably exist in arithmetic (even without Digital Mechanism).

[S.P.] while consciousness deals with wholes. Any thought is a whole complex system.

No problem with this. 

[S.P.] Consciousness "computes" not in digits but in wholes. To explain the mechanisms of consciousness it is not sufficient just to consider our ability to compute. 

You are right. The universal machine is already aware of this. But that is not an argument against computationalism. In fact, self-observing machine tends to get anti-mechanist conclusion, until they understand that this is explained by the mechanist assumption. I am aware it looks paradoxical at first sight.

I will be busy this week. Don't hesitate to ask question, or read my papers on the subject (and ask further questions), but I can't promise to comment soon, only asap!

Best,

Bruno


>SP


From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fun with Number Theory, The Game of Life

Multisense Realism

non lue,
31 juil. 2017, 22:01:3931/07/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


On Jul 31, 2017 2:22 PM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> on July 31, 2017 wrote:
>>[S.P.] I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. 
>>A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,
>
>Notably. It deals with finite information.
.
[S.P.] No, a computing machine deals with physical signals but not with information (whether "finite" or "infinite"). The "1"-s and "0"-s are objectively existing physical signals, like N-S and S-N oriented magnetic fields on the HDD platters covered with magnetic material. 
.
The term "bits of information" is incorrect in principle -- it should be just "physical signal", and without "bits", since every "bit" is a physical signal itself which has certain

What makes a physical signal different from a physical event which is not a signal?

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
1 août 2017, 05:09:4001/08/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 31 Jul 2017, at 19:54, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

-
Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> on July 31, 2017 wrote:
>>[S.P.] I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. 
>>A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,
>
>Notably. It deals with finite information.
.
[S.P.] No, a computing machine deals with physical signals but not with information (whether "finite" or "infinite"). The "1"-s and "0"-s are objectively existing physical signals, like N-S and S-N oriented magnetic fields on the HDD platters covered with magnetic material. 

Assuming that there is something primarily physical. I do not that assumption, except in an eventual reductio ad absurdum in the Digital Mechanist context.

A computer is a physical implementation (incarnation) of a universal machine or number (an arithmetical concept).

But the universal machine are already implemented in arithmetic, and no machine can see the difference from the pure 1p view, but they can see difference in their local 1p plural possible. Digital Mechanism is testable.

Assuming Mechanism, in fine, the physical is reduced to statistics on machine's observable. The reason is in the reasoning in eight steps provided in the sane04 paper, the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) (notably):





.
The term "bits of information" is incorrect in principle -- it should be just "physical signal", and without "bits", since every "bit" is a physical signal itself which has certain objective (i.e., universally detectable, measurable, etc.) physical features. Therefore, we cannot use the computer engineering terminology while discussing the mechanisms of consciousness.

That depends on your assumption. If you assume a primary physical universe, you are correct. But Digital Mechanism is my working hypothesis, and my point is that it is incompatible with physicalism (in metaphysics) and that this has testable consequences. I predicted notably, before having heard from Everett, the "many-world" aspect of nature, which has to be indirectly testable when we look at ourself, or our environment, below our substitution level, where our consciousness relies on infinities of computations (see the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) in the paper above).

I am not claiming that Mechanism is true. I claim that it is testable, and that thanks to Quantum Mechanics and Incompleteness it fits well with the facts, which is nice because it relies on the notion of person, very often eliminated by materialist (as they should by the UDA reasoning).

The UDA can be translated in arithmetic language, and we can already "interview" a universal machine on it, and that leads to the formal confirmation: the subject obeys an intuitionist logic, and matter obeys a quantum logic.

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.

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

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
1 août 2017, 07:11:1501/08/2017
à VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL,Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinod,

I answer online, if you don't mind, because this throw some light on question asked by other participant.


On 01 Aug 2017, at 12:21, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL wrote:

Bruno wrote:

"Then, I would say that mind and thought can be directly expressed in term of digital machine, or natural numbers, but consciousness and knowledge cannot"

You wrote that mind and thoughts can be expressed in a digital machine but NOT consciousness and knowledge?

Yes, especially in this group, where many people makes a nuance between mind and consciousness. Keep in mind I am working in the frame of the computationalist thesis. So I define "mind", roughly, by anything a universal machine (which lives in the arithmetical reality) can do. 





i) First the question will arise: can the entire domain of mind be identified, defined, parameterized? It is only then the question of its digitalization will arise.






ii) The second issue will arise, can we digitalize the entire domain of the mind, if it can be identified?

It can, even constructively. It is easy to write a program which generates all programs and which executes them all, little pieces by little pieces as most of them never stop.
I have implemented such a "universal dovetailer", and let it run for one week, on a little computer many years ago(*), just for illustrative purpose.

Note that mathematically, a universal dovetailing is equiavlent with the consequence of elementary arithmetic, so the arithmetical truth (a tiny part of it) emulates everything computable. 



iii) You wrote that mind can be expressed but NOT knowledge. Does knowledge exist some where else than mind? If Yes. where does knowledge resides?

I use the Theatetus definition of (rational) knowledge: true (justifiable) opinion.

Incompleteness makes "provable" into a belief-modality (not knowledge!). But this makes possible to apply Theaetetus idea on provable/believable, and it gives a theory of knowledge (the modal logic S4: we have Kp -> p, and Kp -> KKp, for example).

Like Tarski showed that "truth" is not definable, it can be shown that this notion of knowledge is not definable by any correct machine. the machine can postulate Mechanism, itself, and justify that she cannot define its own notion of knowledge, but she can do that for smaller machine that she can believe to be correct.




Then Bruno wrote:

 "But the machine can be aware of this. In computer science we (the machine) can distinguish many sort of knowledge:

Definable and memorable,
Memorable and non definable
Definable but not justifiable,
Not definable but still personally justifiable,
Not definable, not personally justifiable, but memorable,
Not definable, not justifiable, and not memorable (plausibly like absolute enlightenment, if that exists).

Observable and not justifiable,
Observable and justifiable,
Not observable and justifiable (mathematics)"

But the was the above mentioned capability in a machine ( a computer) to distinguish between definable and memorable, memorable and definable, definable but not justifiable,-------  manifested in the computer on its own OR was incorporated in the computer externally by some conscious programmer who could understand and distinguish between these parameters?

It is not incorporated. It follows from what any sound machine cannot avoid to discover when looking inward.

In fact incompleteness is so subtle that the machine will discover ... The five "hypostases" mentionned by Parmenides,  Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, at least if we accept the neoplatonist reading of them:   (<>t = ~[]~t = ~[]f = consistency = reality-assumption)

p  truth, the one
[]p justifiable 
[]p & p knowable
[]p & <>t  observable
[]p & <>t & p  sensible,

and three of them (justifiable, observable and sensible) split in two logics (the true one, and the justifiable one), leading to 8 modes that a machine can see itself. Those logics are very different, and the machine will have an hard time to understand what happen to her. She too will be follow discussion in spiritual forum!

Best,

Bruno









Vinod Sehgal

.


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Dear Vinod,

On 01 Aug 2017, at 09:01, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL wrote:



But can our consciousness, mind  and all our thoughts be expressed in terms of any digital or analog or quantum analog computing mechanisms?

I am not sure about analog machines, especially in quantum mechanics. Analog machine which are not depending on 100% correctness (all decimals correct) are Turing emulable, and so we can use the digital assumption, unless we make some anti-mechanist assumption.

Then, I would say that mind and thought can be directly expressed in term of digital machine, or natural numbers, but consciousness and knowledge cannot. But the machine can be aware of this. In computer science we (the machine) can distinguish many sort of knowledge:

Definable and memorable,
Memorable and non definable
Definable but not justifiable,
Not definable but still personally justifiable,
Not definable, not personally justifiable, but memorable,
Not definable, not justifiable, and not memorable (plausibly like absolute enlightenment, if that exists).

Observable and not justifiable,
Observable and justifiable,
Not observable and justifiable (mathematics)
etc.

I might say more in future posts,

Best regards,

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

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

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
2 août 2017, 10:36:2902/08/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinod,



> >So my query was: Can my mind be digitalized in toto and transposed
> in any machine?
> I don't know that.
>
> >Thanks for your candidness and honesty

You are welcome.



>
> But I assume it can be done. It is my working hypothesis. Not in any
> machine, but in any universal machine (computer, for example).
>
> >What is the basis of your hypothesis?

The intuition comes from my study of molecular biology. I discovered
the "universal number" through the study of bacteria, viruses, and
then human molecular biology.
Then I discovered that the very conceptual idea apparently used by
living organism at the molecular level exist already in arithmetic,
thanks to the work of Gödel (mainly).





>
> >How do you differentiate a machine from a universal machine
> ( computer as exemplified by you)


A digital machine can do one or two digital tasks, like sending mail,
or text treatment.
A universal digital machine can do all task done by any digital
machine, once you describe that machine to it, usually through number
of sequence of symbol (number in disguise, say).



>
> We don't need to be able to decipher the brain or the mind. If we do
> that, it will be by copying
> the brain at an hopefully reasonable level of description. It
> requires always an act of faith.
>
> >Faith part is OK. But by deciphering our mind/brain thru
> digitalization, it can be established that
> >the physicality of our brain and mind is governed by the Mechanism
> and further physicality
> >of the brain and mind evolves thru numbers/arithmetic as part of
> some dreams, as you
> >frequently assert
> Mechanism can explain why no machine can know which machine she is.
>
> >With or without the mechanism, a machine is an inert unconscious
> entity.

OK for unconscious. But why inert? Even a clock is not inert. Then the
consciousness is an attribute related to the soul of the machine, the
machine itself is only "his" body.


> >How an inert
> >unconscious entity be aware of its existence or the type of its
> existence?

It cannot. The consciousness is in the arithmetical truth. It can
borrow a local representation with respect to some universal number
which will "run" it.

The problem is more severe for the materialist. he/she has to explain
how inert matter can instantiate a computation (that is still easy, as
the physical is Turing universal), and select its computations among
the infinities in arithmetic (that is impossible unless adding some
magic ability to matter).




>
> >Our human body may behave like a machine but our body/machine has
> no awareness

I agree.






> of its existence or what type of machine is the body. It is we ( our
> consciousness) which is aware of the existence of the body or the
> inference/fact that it is behaving like a machine.

Yes.



>
> My point is not that Digital Mechanism is true. It is only that IF
> Digital Mechanism. is true, THEN physicalism is wrong.
>
> >Why Physicalism and the digital mechanism be so much at the
> opposite ends?


Because with mechanism, you soul is attached to the infinitely many
computations going through your actual state. If a god or a matter
could select a computation to make it "more real", it needs something
not Turing emulable (and we go out of the scope of my working
hypothesis).

Physicalism use a magical conception of matter, for which there are no
evidences.





> >Let the Physicalism may
> >function as per some Physical Laws and those Laws may be
> expressible or follow some
> >digital mechanism. What is the problem in this interpretation?

This leads to digital physicalism. It cannot work at all. Our
distribution in arithmetic can be shown to be NOT computable!

If we are machine (if we are supported by machine/computations), then
neither consciousness, nor matter can be entirely computable.

We are not in *some* computation. We are in infinitely many
computations. They do interfere statistically. Some can interact,
others do not, but they still play a role in our first person
indeterminacy on all computations. I can come back on this later, or
perhaps read the sane04 paper.

Best,

Bruno



>
> Neoplatonism and advaita Vedanta remains coherent, but dvaita
> (dualism), and materialism
> are not
>
> Regards.

Vinod Sehgal.

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



N.Panchapakesan

non lue,
11 août 2017, 05:56:2411/08/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com,mar...@ulb.ac.be
Dear Bruno

               Computationalism model of yours seems difficult to understand, for me.
To deal with Godel's theorem , you seem to have postulated a set of machines which are outside the space in which Godel's theorem operates. Anyway you have , I understand , predictions in refereed publications. So experiments ,sooner or later will make your theory acceptable or otherwise.

                   My interest is more in the few hints you have given about enlightenment or salvation. This is when you talk about Helping others and need of little ego. Do you have any guidance for  new seekers. ?  

Regards

Panchu

N. Panchapakesan
New Delhi, India


On 31 July 2017 at 15:12, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2017, at 02:21, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:

-
>Well, by Mechanism, I mean Digital Mechanism, and another terming is "computationalism"

In other words, you cannot express your ideas without using such a term as "mechanism".


It is a matter of helping people that I am not defending an idea, but just deriving the consequences of an hypothesis.






Computationalism, or the computational theory of mind holds that the mind is a computation that arises from the brain acting as a computing machine. 

This is ambiguous. In the mechanist theory, what is provable, is that neither the soul, nor matter can be computable.



I do not consider living organism as a computing machine. A computer deals with "1"-s and "0"-s,

Notably. It deals with finite information. But this entails that the soul or the person attached to that mind or to the computer, is not a computer, nor even anything describable in 3p terms.

See my papers which explains why the incompleteness results makes soul, and matter, non computable. The soul can only attach itself to an infinity of "brain" representations, which provably exist in arithmetic (even without Digital Mechanism).





while consciousness deals with wholes. Any thought is a whole complex system.

No problem with this. 





Consciousness "computes" not in digits but in wholes. To explain the mechanisms of consciousness it is not sufficient just to consider our ability to compute. 


You are right. The universal machine is already aware of this. But that is not an argument against computationalism. In fact, self-observing machine tends to get anti-mechanist conclusion, until they understand that this is explained by the mechanist assumption. I am aware it looks paradoxical at first sight.

I will be busy this week. Don't hesitate to ask question, or read my papers on the subject (and ask further questions), but I can't promise to comment soon, only asap!

Best,

Bruno








SP


From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: private_Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fun with Number Theory, The Game of Life
On 24 Jul 2017, at 13:54, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:


->But those papers assume mechanism, often implicitly.

Can you express your ideas without using the word "mechanism"?

Well, by Mechanism, I mean Digital Mechanism, and another terming is "computationalism" (but it is harder to write and spell).

It is my working hypothesis, and it is often used by (weak) materialist (believer in *primary* matter) or by physicalist. But my main result is that Mechanism is incompatible with weak materialism and physicalism. 

This result is not well known despite it has been peer-reviewed, defend as a PhD thesis, published in some journal (and badly copied by some people). That is why I have to repeat the hypothesis and the result. 

If I do not repeat this, it will look like I am defending some philosophical position, which I do not. Actually, I thought that I have refuted Digital Mechanism, but eventually, the "absurdity" I saw was already somehow confirmed (not refuted) by Nature (i.e. Quantum mechanics without collapse, or the many-world aspect of nature).


Bruno






SP


From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>

Alex,


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.
--
----------------------------
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.

--
----------------------------
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/B6411D5E-1460-4C93-A085-7B5EF554BB15%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

non lue,
13 août 2017, 16:49:5013/08/2017
à Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Paul,

I assume mechanism, and the knowledge that all machine dreams/computations are emulated in the arithmetical reality. It is not so well know,, tough.

On 11 Aug 2017, at 15:07, Paul Werbos wrote:



On Aug 5, 2017 4:17 AM, "Bruno Marchal" <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

The question becomes "where did this physical mundane universe actually come from?"
The big bang? Quantum vacuum? This already assumes a physical reality. There might be a simpler explanation.


First, a small caveat. There are times when I prefer to use the word "cosmos" rather than "universe," in respect to the Everett/Wheeler/Deutsch theory that our cosmos is actually made up (at each time) of an infinite collection of three dimensional objects we see as "universes".

OK. Usually I use cosmos for the branch we are in, and universe for the ... "multiverse" or universal wave.

To be sure, I do not believe in in the primacy of this. Both the particular branches and the universal wave are phenomenological.




Reality is trickier than that, but already our understanding in physics is rich enough that I need to know which question you are interested in:

(1) Why do we seem to see the particular three-dimensional "universe" object we now see, out of all the many such objects which exist?

(2) Where did the larger cosmos, and the mathematical "law of everything", actually come from?

My guess is that you meant to choose (2),

Good guess. But with mechanism, an answer to (2) should put some light on (1). Precisely: (2) will either answer (1) or make the particular as a case of a geographical particularity. 




but then there is a further caveat. I would not use the word "mundane" to describe the cosmos. The cosmos includes not only ordinary familiar types of matter (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons), but dark matter and other things -- enough to provide the material substance for life and intelligence and consciousness to evolve at levels above that of the mundane human body. STRICTLY AS A MATTER OF SEMANTICS, we may or may not choose to view the cosmos itself as a kind of mind in itself, depending on how we feel about the equations; the equations are real, the fuzzy labels people argue about much less so.


I think we agree. With mechanism, the cardinal of reality is absolutely undecidable, and personally, I tend to believe in only 0, s(0), s(s(0), together with the laws of succession, addition and multiplication. The notion of computation is born in metamathematics, and indeed, in the part of metamathematic which can be arithmetized, and has been, as explained in the textbooks of mathematical logic.

By "mundane", I meant "first person plural sharable". It is the locally observable or guessable, like dark matter, dark energy, dark flows. That is part of our common stable dream.

But the origin of all that is the origin of the dreamers, and with Church thesis, it is a theorem that a (tiny part) of the arithmetical reality emulate all dreams. The observable, sharable (quanta) and non sharable (qualia) are modalities of self-reference on the part of the dreamer entity.

It is testable, and it works until now (curiously enough).






============

So then, your question (as I understand it): where did this incredible cosmos come from?

My questions: how can we make sense of this question, and what is the right way to approach it?

Always when we pose a fundamental theory, the question of "WHY is it true?" effectively asks for a more fundamental theory. As you hint, this easily gets into an empty infinite regress.


Not necessarily. With mechanism, we get an explanation (perhaps wrong, testable) of the origin of the beliefs (true and wrong) of a (universal) person lost in a web of "dreams" in arithmetic. It is very close to Plotinus, with a two way path that the soul can take in between Heaven and Earth, say.

And, (and this is the point), you can't ask where arithmetic comes from, because arithmetic can justify "arithmetically" that if you assume less than itself (up to a Turing-isomorphism) you can't get it at all.  






Certainly I am DEEPLY interested right now in looking for such a more fundamental theory, one step deeper than Modified or Markovian QED (http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0343). At some time, it may or may not be worthwhile to try to probe one level deeper than that (if an empirical basis is found for doing so), but for now that one deep step is enough of a challenge, even though the gross qualitative ideas seem clear and detailed enough. (We all can emit lots of fuzzy words, but that is neither here nor there.) 


If the person is sincere with itself, any path will do. 
If the person is not sincere with itself, no path will do.






For myself, I would be ready to respond with intense thought in reaction to real empirical clues EITHER from the physics lab OR from veridical paranormal experience. (Ancient holy texts I do not treat as solid evidence, given how they contradict each other anyway.

I interpret the contradiction as typo error, joke, or attempt to remind never taking anything sacred literally. 

I do not believe in the "paranormal", given that when a psychologist succeeds in verifying a parapsychological experience, like it happened for the luicid dream, then "para" is thrown away. 

I am a skeptical. I am a Platonist, I do not believe in what I see. I trust the normal in principle, but beware of the domain involved. "Para" is a sociological term. It is an artificial wall.

I don't believe in the normal physical things already. It is easier to explain the illusion of the moon to a person, than to explain the illusion of person to the moon... 

My real interest has always been the mind-body problem, and the partial solution I saw in molecular genetics was already in elementary arithmetic. It is Gödel theorem which decides me to do mathematics.

To be sure, as a professional I am agnostic, here I assume and behave like if I was a mechanist believer (to avoid conditional jargon).



I view them all as evidence more like dreams, which at best call for lots of filtering, testing and probing analysis of where they came from.)

OK. 



At present, I do not see any serious clues to any specific need for a model beyond Lagrange-Euler equations operating over ordinary curved Minkowski space, now that I understand better how such models work. 


If that is true, and not just geographical, then, to get the mind-brain identity right, you have to justify the Lagrange-Euler equations from "the theology of numbers". My feeling from what has already been extracted is that we will get the quantum principle, and the symmetries, but it is an open problem if eventually the "particles" will be classified by the Monster group or something. 

Another "quick way" would be the prime number distribution, which, if the RH is correct, would dovetail on a quantum computer in the limit, justifying, or not, a single quantum measure. 







-----------

That is the logical response as I see it. But I still see two entertaining images which may be worth mentioning.

Many decades ago, I came to a small party hosted by Professor Albritton, head of the Harvard philosophy department (which combined a typical Anglo-American analytic base with a deep interest in the larger history of philosophy). Someone asked him what it all means in the end, what it has to say to the rest of us. He knocked his hand on the wall, and said (roughly) : "Well, we have agonized a lot over whether we should accept THIS all as real or not. Mainly we do.." To accept reality and life, for all their complexities, or not. Or as Nietzsche once said, to say "yes" or "no" to life itself. Or as Valliant once said, whether to get rid of nonsense defense mechanisms like denial, and to move on.

For me the problem begun when theology was keep away from science. That has helped only bad faith. Both in the Eastern and Western world, you see the honest inquirers, and those with hidden agenda (fame, money, notoriety, ...). When liars get the power, as they often do, honesty is an handicap, even if it is the only real power in the long run.

There is also a natural fear with respect to the fundamental question, life and death. And who we are.

When I asked my father what is truth, he told me that it was what the human fears the most.





I have often heard people debate "Is God male or female or transgender?" The minute I hear such things, I picture a huge fetus (a bit like the one in the movie 2001), a fetus speculating about the sex life of its parents. There are better things for a fetus brain to think about. Such speculations remind me of a neural network I once trained to solve a generalized maze problem, which initially wasted ever so much time in relatively unproductive oscillations, due to trying to optimize the weights which were less important to its current stage of learning. A system more self-aware, modeling its larger progress, could move much faster. To express our own life and our own nature, we too need to make better use of true self-awareness, and try not to follow the empty paths of so many ... whatever. (I remember a yoga teacher who talked about the "river of ice" so many get caught in, made much icier by delusions of... whatever.)


Many salvia reports describe en encounter with a divine entity definitely felt as feminine. 

And I like to joke on the macho greeks for which odd numbers are male and even numbers are female, and for who 1 is, of course, the Big One, ... I like to joke when pointing that today we know that the big 1 is in between the two most terrible female of Platonia: the number 0 (death, annihilation) and the number 2 (life, couple, duplication, creation, the indefinite dyad of the Pythagoreans).

But take this with a grain of salt, if that was needed to be made precise.

Best wishes,

Bruno



Répondre à tous
Répondre à l'auteur
Transférer
0 nouveau message