Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly.

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist.

Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.

There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality.

 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. 

The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.

The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event.

Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws.

Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations.

Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime.

He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. 

But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged.

Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements.

E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.

However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first.

There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a measurement event.

Edgar

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Edgar,

  I like Kevin Knuth's theory of emergent space time. It is far more simple and does not need to get into quantum aspects other than a basic notion of an observer. An observer is a simple entity whose state is changed as the result of an observation/interaction: A nice video of one of his talks can be found on the Perimeter Institute website.

[LizR]

On 30 December 2013 06:16, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist.

How would this work? What is doing this computing, and how and where is it doing it? Computation is generally considered to be a time-based operation, a series of rule-governed state transitions. It also appears to require some form of space (e.g. Turing's "infinite tape" and state table) in which the machine state and the input and output are to be stored. The only way I know of to not assume space and time as a fundamental background is Bruno's idea that computation can be made to operate "indexically" inside arithmetical realism. Are you proposing something like that? If so, please elaborate. One cannot just "imagine a world in which everything is computational" - to have an ontology based on computation, one needs a framework which starts from the nature of computation and explains how it can be instantiated without any supporting structures (like time or hardware).

Once you've explained and justified this initial assumption, we can proceed to the next step in your argument.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

There doesn't have to be any notion of physical space for computations to take place within. The take place in a purely pre-dimensional logical space. They are not running on any physical computer.

Edgar

[meekerdb]

"Dimensional" seems to have just been thrown in with no real meaning. What is needed is
an operational definition of interval between two such "point".

>
> Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an
> ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini
> spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations.

But you need to show the definition of interval produces a 3+1 spacetime.

>
> Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in
> myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The
> effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network
> of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical
> spacetime.
>
> He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he
> can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the
> structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in
> aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our
> familiar spacetime.
>
> But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a
> computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be
> continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes
> back into the computational reality from which it emerged.
>
>
> Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR
> and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges
> from quantum events

Hold it!? A mini-spacetime network consists of interaction events that must be related in
some way to form a network. So how can the network be "abosultely" independent of other
networks? They might even share some of the same events.

> is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked
> and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and
> only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common
> to all its elements.

This requires that the intervals between events arise or be induced and that they form a
3+1 spacetime. What are the dynamics of this process?

Brent

>
> E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are
> exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini
> spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation
> is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.
>
> However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the
> mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the
> spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter
> the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to
> that of the first.
>
> There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all
> depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a
> completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they
> are linked and aligned via a measurement event.
>
> Edgar

> --
> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[LizR]

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try.

 

[meekerdb]

This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time.

Brent

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Brent,

   I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

Step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Brent,

   I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?

In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the graph of y = 2x + 7

Jason 

--
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.

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Jason,

  So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

  So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?

Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?

Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change your conscious state for x=2?

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here.

I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent.

 

The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand.

Right, that is good.

 

Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.

Isn't that how explanations work?

 

Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain.

 

  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change.

It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look for explanations of it.

Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity, because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which all "nows" are equally real.

Jason

--

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.

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Jason,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here.

I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent.

How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious.

 

 

The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand.

Right, that is good.

 

Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.

Isn't that how explanations work?

 

Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain.

Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge. Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?

 

 

  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change.

It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look for explanations of it.

Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind the persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc.

  The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and misdirection...

 

Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity, because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which all "nows" are equally real.

No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it. Conformally and faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there is no absolute space nor time. SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to navigate our local regions.

  Additionally, the arguments that try to use SR and GR assume that the H.U.P. doesn't exist. Pfft, can you do better?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here.

I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent.

How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be emergent.

The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.

 

Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious.

 

 

The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand.

Right, that is good.

 

Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.

Isn't that how explanations work?

 

Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain.

Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.

You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge though.

 

Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?

From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible, the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.

 

 

 

  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change.

It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look for explanations of it.

Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind the persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc.

  The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and misdirection...

Do you think a computer can be conscious?

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.

 

 

Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity, because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which all "nows" are equally real.

No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it.

Different parts of an object can exist in different times (not a single instant) for two different observers in the same place.  How can an older version of this object exist simultaneously with a younger version of this object, unless the object is a four-dimensional and exists in all its ages?  SR proves that the present cannot be infinitely thin, and actually can be made as spread out is as needed (given high enough speeds and large enough distances).

 

Conformally and faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there is no absolute space nor time.

That's not how Einstein understood it.

 

SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to navigate our local regions.

It is incompatible not only with an objective present, but also the idea that objects only exist at one instant of time. Imagine a device with two clocks separated by a pole.  One person standing still between the clocks says the clocks are synchronized.  Someone running to the left (and right next to the person standing still) will say the clock on the left runs ahead of the clock on the right, while a third person, running towards the right, will say the left clock runs behind the clock on the right.

So simultaneously, and in the same positions, you have the left-most clock read 12:00, 12:01, and 11:59 for each of the three observers, who each happen to be in the same place and at the same time.  How can the future state of the clocks exist together with the past state of the clock, if the present is only one instant?  In this example, the "present" which contains all that exists would have to be at least 2 minutes long to explain this situation, but then we can make the pole even longer, and the discrepancy of simultaneously existing clock states even greater..

 

  Additionally, the arguments that try to use SR and GR assume that the H.U.P. doesn't exist. Pfft, can you do better?

H.U.P? Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I don't see the relevance of it to these relativistic thought experiments.

Jason

[LizR]

Bruno has explanied how his computations take place timelessly, within arithmetic. So far Edgar's ontology requires an external, pre-existing time dimension and a pre-existing "pre-logical space" (whatever that is).

I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD "runs" inside arithmetic, but at least he has come up with a coherent theory, as far as I can tell. But so far, at least, I am having trouble pinning down exactly what Edgar is trying to say. (Admittedly I may be biased by his obvious misunderstanding of SR, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with his other ideas.)

[LizR]

On 30 December 2013 18:43, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer.

This is a problem that a lot of people have with the whole idea of a block universe and related concepts, but the fact is that space+time can be considered as a 4 dimensional block. This is most easily understood if you consider the past. As generally understood, the past is a perfect model of a block universe. I know there are some caveats about this - delayed choice experiments, time symmetric physics and so on - but if we restrict ourselves to what might be called a "layman's" conception of the past, it is a perfect example of a block universe.

To take a concrete example, the Battle of Hastings is embedded in the "map of the past" at the spatial location Hastings, and the temporal location 1066 A.D. To the people fighting the battle, it appears that time is "flowing" - they don't know what the outcome will be, to them it's still undecided. But we can see from our "superior" future perspective that the whole thing is simply embedded in a 4D block of space-time, and the outcome is already there, embedded in space-time in a futureward direction from the battle. The whole thing is a frozen timescape, within which it appears to the participants that time is flowing.

There is no reason to think that our present is any different. We see time as flowing just as the people in 1066 did, and for the same reason: if something is taking dfferent values along the time axis, e.g. a bird is changing position by flying past my window, that something appears to change.

Watching a film in the cinema is another example of this, which is especially clear if the film is on celluloid, or the modern equivalent (it's a bit less clear perhaps if it's digital).

[LizR]

On 30 December 2013 19:36, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here.

I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent.

How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious.

It can be emergent exactly in the way Jason explained. It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. The snapshots used in FOR illustrate this.

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen". 

  If we are going to insist that time is an illusion, I can accept that, but please explain the persistent illusion when it can be proven that there is no a priori ordering of events allowed by QM. This is the fundamental problem of uniting QM and SR/GR.

 They treat time fundamentally differently. Sure, we can do Deutsch's trick of a pile of snapshots, but "states" do not come with little timestamps on them for easy ordering nor is there a unique ordering of them even possible. David Albert explains this very well in several of his talks. (He does not have a paper on it that I can find though... that bothers me...) Nevertheless, the point is that it is possible to explain time as a measure of change iff we take change as fundamental and drop the Parmenidean dogma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

  A couple professors that I know are working on a paper that might slay that monster finally... But how many will read it????

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Stephen, Jason, Liz,

The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the computations compute clock time.

The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything. The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us nothing. All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz properly raises....

OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation!

:-)

Edgar

[Bruno Marchal]

Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.

The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1 truth. With comp "everything" is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all computations.  It is also the truth about those computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by this or that machine, but that is independent of its truth or falsity.

To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to believe in addition and multiplication.

Bruno

Brent

--

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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[LizR]

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen". 

A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.

That answers the question of how this particular sequence "just happens" for both GR and QM!

:-)

[LizR]

On 30 December 2013 22:30, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Stephen, Jason, Liz,

The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the computations compute clock time.

The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything.

This is, of course, a circular argument.

The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us nothing. All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz properly raises....

This is, of course, only true if one has failed to grasp the block universe view.

 

OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation!

:-)

Hmm, looks like a smidgeon of progress here.

 

--

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]

On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:25, LizR wrote:

I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD "runs" inside arithmetic

Don't push me too much as I really want to explain this to you :)

It is not completely obvious, especially if we want be 100% rigorous.

There are not so much textbook which do that entirely correctly. But here are three best one:

Boolos and Jeffrey (and Burgess for late edition).

http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Logic-George-S-Boolos/dp/0521701465

Epstein and Carnielli   (out of stock!)

http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Computable-Functions-Foundations-Mathematics/dp/0534103561/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388400218&sr=1-2&keywords=epstein+and+carnielli

Matiyasevitch

http://www.amazon.com/Hilberts-10th-Problem-Foundations-Computing/dp/0262132958/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388400285&sr=1-1&keywords=matiyasevich

Matiyasevitch shows explicitly how to emulate any Turing machine with diophantine polynomials.

Oh, well, there is also the old good Stephen Kleene 1952 book, and many by Smullyan (although like Gödel they do that in PA or equivalent, and not in RA, which ask for more verification. Matiyasevitc shows that for diophantine equation, which means that it makes the RA universal quantifier not needed, and so gives the stronger result.

The main deep idea is already in Gödel 1931. 

May be the shortest path is to explain the phi_i and use Kleene predicate to explain that equalities involving the phi_i are made arithmetical by the use of Kleene's predicate, but this needs the Gödel coding, which is long to describe, and even longer to prove that it does correctly the job.

I am thinking how to explain this without going in the technical details.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Stephen, Jason, Liz,

The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the computations compute clock time.

The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything. The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us nothing.

You are right: you don't get anything with only

0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...

But you get the subjective time and possible relatively objective 3p time from the sequence above, once you agree with the laws of numbers: explicitly:

x + 0 = x  

x + s(y) = s(x + y) 

 x *0 = 0

 x*s(y) = x*y + x  

Arithmetic contains all diophantine approximation of all ... soccer cups, and things like that, like the collison between the Milky Way and Andromeda. But the 1p (consciousness) emerges "really" only in the limiting glue of the diophantine solutions, and those might not be solution of any particular diophantine equation.

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.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[meekerdb]

On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try.

This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time.

Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.

But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?  How does it emerge?  And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Brent

[meekerdb]

But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? 

Brent

That answers the question of how this particular sequence "just happens" for both GR and QM!

:-)

--

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.

[LizR]

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen". 

A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.

But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?  

That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations.... (somehow.... A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.)

Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Brent,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen". 

A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.

But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? 

Yes, QM -as standardly used- has a state transition model to do calculations with it. There are other ways of doing computations. My favorite is Hewitt's Actor Model:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7erJ1DV_Tlo

Observers come with self-consistent universes -which are their observations. Interactions between these must be, at some level, logically non-contradictory (incontrovertible).

 

Brent

That answers the question of how this particular sequence "just happens" for both GR and QM!

:-)

--

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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear LizR,

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between a pair of things...

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[meekerdb]

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here.

Brent

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here."

No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not "random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[meekerdb]

On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.� I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here."

No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not "random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers).

Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable for our existence too.

Brent

[LizR]

On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi LizR,

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between a pair of things...

That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.

However, you do assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from anything simpler.

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...

Hope you get well soon! 

[LizR]

On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here.

Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of reality. 

[Stephen Paul King]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here."

No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not "random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers).

Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable for our existence too.

Brent

But we don't need to assume "randomness" in the acausal sense. As I see things, the "reality" in which we find ourselves is one that evolved, but the "one" was selected as being the one at least compatible with our experience in it. 

  I reject pre-ordained harmonies as unnecessary! We don't have to "impose" order and consistency. All we need are local rules that allow consistency and then notice that we only experience ourselves in those worlds that are consistent with us "in them".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[meekerdb]

How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking for an explanation of *this*.  Not just an explanation of why there is *some world* with people.

Brent

[Stephen Paul King]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi LizR,

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between a pair of things...

That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.

No, that doesn't work as it ignores the "cause" of the transition. I understand the confusion on this concept. We are used to thinking that state transitions is a one to one map. A ->B. But think for a second: What if I have multiple and different possible next states? 

A -> B or A-> B' or A->B''

What then?

Vaughan Pratt figured out a way to do this! One allows for all possible future states, given some current state A, then looks at each of those Bs and asks: Which of these preserves the "truths" of A and yet is a different state. If B' is the most logical consequence of A, given A's "facts, then B' obtains and not B or B''. It is a local selection mechanism. We repeat this over and over and obtain the appearance of a "dimension of time": a sequence of events that can be mapped to the integers. We notice that this time as a constructive process generates worlds that have a difference between their past and future, in the sense that "I can remember by past, but I cannot recall my future". Why? Because it wasn't computed yet.

Logic looks backwards from the future, physics moves forward from the past. 

 

However, you do assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from anything simpler.

Yes! There is no need for anything simpler! It does the job.

 

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...

Hope you get well soon! 

Thank you!  I really enjoy these back and forths...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen Paul King]

Yeah, we start with what we know to be true: I am experiencing something. That leads, via Descartes skeptical analysis for example, to: I think therefore I am. We correct this to: "I think therefore I was" as the "state" that one "is" is the one that was computed by the look back. It is not sitting there like a husk waiting to be possessed momentarily by a disembodied mind...

 

  In this way of thinking there can be no zombies and no ghosts. If there is no possibility of a body, there cannot be a mind either and vice versa.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen Paul King]

Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action. Don't separate observers from their observations. Simple rule linking observers to observations. X can only experience worlds (collections of observations) whose existence is consistent with the observer's existence. 

Let me drill down a bit more into this.

  We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem kinda thing. Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the possibility of observing a world "from the outside". 

Is this helping?

 

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you think a computer can be conscious?

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.

 

Edgar,

I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

Thanks,

Jason 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try.

This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time.

Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.

But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,

OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).

so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? 

Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories.

How does it emerge? 

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen". 

A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.

But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?  

That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations.... (somehow.... A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.)

Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing.

You need to say what you mean by "thing" to explain what is meant by "nothing". The same with everything. For example, to define the quantum vacuum, you need to assume Hilbert Space or von Neumann Algebra, which are a lot of thing by itself.

Bruno

It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between a pair of things...

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

Step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

--

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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

Ok, but that does not apply to computationalism. Tegmark is missing the comp mind-body problem, the FPI, etc. Even if it makes sense to say that "we are in a mathematical structure", that "mathematical structure" must be extracted from the FPI on the sigma_1 sentences.

Bruno

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here.

Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of reality.

How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking for an explanation of *this*.  Not just an explanation of why there is *some world* with people.

Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action. Don't separate observers from their observations. Simple rule linking observers to observations. X can only experience worlds (collections of observations) whose existence is consistent with the observer's existence. 

Let me drill down a bit more into this.

  We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem kinda thing.

To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although not as such).

Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

Bruno

Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the possibility of observing a world "from the outside". 

Is this helping?

 

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

Step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

--

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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jason,

Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own..... 

Edgar

[Jason Resch]

Edgar,

Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation.

If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is.

Jason  

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

Edgar

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Edgar,

  I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Stephen,

No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why...

Edgar

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Edgar,

  Wheeler shows how it is possible to obtain an emergent world from interactions between observers. It seems that I might have the exactly title of the paper wrong!

Please read this! You will see the relevance immediately!

http://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pdf

Here is a nice commentary on the paper: http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't follow.  Could you elaborate?

Jason

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jason,

Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...

Edgar

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense
of "computations".

> The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
> conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as
> explained in the other post.

Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose you
an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
substitution?

Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?

>
> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
> real and actually exists means it must be present.

It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
search, using this or that theories.

> That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
> moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared
> locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of
> reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

Bruno


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

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Edgar,

  You are making a claim without support. Can you explain a mechanism that generates the occurrence of the content of the computations. Bruno and Wheeler do. I am much more Happy with Wheeler's explanation involving interactions, but he does not explain observers. Bruno does give us a definition of observers but it is as "objects" that exist a priori.

   I advocate Kitoshi Hitada's definition of observers as separable QM systems, but that definition does not explain where the observables obtain, they just exist a priori as "potentia".  

  What is your ontological theory?

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

  Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

I really do appreciate the details!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try.

This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time.

Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.

But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,

OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).

The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?

 

so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? 

Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories.

OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?

 

How does it emerge? 

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no "action" involved!

 

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of "emergings"? Does it have to be "global"? I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. I reject that "God's eye view".

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Jason,

Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...

So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.

[LizR]

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last Supper" by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of "The Book", being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

No relevance to the present topic, of course.

[meekerdb]

On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although not as such).

Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

But then to "know that we know" requires only that we know that we have a belief and that it's true:

��� B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp->B(Bp).� In this system isn't it the case that

���� ((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.

Brent

[LizR]

On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Jason,

Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...

So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.

That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back and never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) objections have gone unanswered.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz, et al,

I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of the theories.

Best all and Happy New Year!

Edgar

[LizR]

On 1 January 2014 12:09, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz, et al,

I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of the theories.

I'm afraid the misunderstanding isn't with us, my dear. We keep asking the same question because you persistently misunderstand what the problems are with a theory that posits a common present moment.

So, can you answer this one yet?

The relativity of simultaneity affects all time dimensions connecting events. P-time, clock-time, whatever - they are all susceptible to the same analysis, with the results that Einstein showed. How do you reconcile this fact with your "theory" ?

Until you give a satisfactory answer to the above question, rather than just woolly hand waving accompanied by patronising comments about how anyone who doesn't grasp the pearls of wisdom from your towering intellect must be imbeciles*, people will keep asking it.

Best all and Happy New Year!

You too! 

* The poor fools! They said I was mad, but I showed them! I showed them all! Nothing in the world can stop me now, not even you, Doctor / Sherlock / Mr Bond! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

** Oops, sorry, that just slipped out (must keep that to myself until AFTER I rule the World...)

[LizR]

Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical beauty).

Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a bad start.

By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment. Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this problem. Only a space-time continuum can be completely Lorentz invariant, everything else has to break down at high enough energies and / or speeds. Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth to a very high degree of precision.

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear LizR,

   Indeed! The observation of ultra high energy gamma rays that traveled a long long way ... no dependence seen between energy and velocity...

  My thought was to replace the single IceCube or FishBowl of space-time with many; one per observer with a composition rule for observers that generates the Lorentz invariance. (I got the idea from David Finkelstein)... 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

  Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?

OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Stephen,

On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I really do appreciate the details!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try.

This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time.

Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.

But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,

OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).

The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?

Define 'self-obedience'.

 

so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? 

Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories.

OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?

?

It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p -> Bp, for p sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).

(Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).

 

How does it emerge? 

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no "action" involved!

Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, .... number sequence.

 

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of "emergings"?

There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the "theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.

Does it have to be "global"?

Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the whole of the Sigma_1 truth).

I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.

He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.

I reject that "God's eye view".

The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

Bruno

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last Supper" by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of "The Book", being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

No relevance to the present topic, of course.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although not as such).

Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

But then to "know that we know" requires only that we know that we have a belief and that it's true:

    B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp->B(Bp). 

We do have Bp -> BBp (as BP itself is sigma_1, and Löban machine proves p -> Bp for all sigm_1 proposition).

In this system isn't it the case that

     ((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

(p+q) -> s

thus by necessitation

B((p+q) -> s)

B((p+q) -> s) -> (B(p+q) -> Bs)   instance of the axiom K : B(a-> b) -> (Ba -> Bb)

B(p+q) <-> Bp + Bq    (normal modal logic)

B((p+q) -> s) -> ((Bp+Bq) -> Bs) substitution preceding line

((Bp+Bq) -> Bs)  (modus ponens)

So it looks we can derive your:((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

But alas we have just use the deduction rule, which is not valid in the modal context when we use the necessitation rule. If not we could derive p -> Bp from the necessitation rule, and this is incorrect.

"p -> Bp" is usually wrong. This is easy to show by using Kripke semantics. Just take a world alpha with p true, accessing a world beta with p false. In alpha, p -> Bp is false. 

Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.

It does not. You confuse the necessitation rule (we can derive Bp from p), and the so called "trivial" formula: p->Bp.

In G we have neither Bp -> p, nor p -> Bp. 

We do have have p -> Bp in G1 (the "G" we obtained when we limit the arithmetical interpretation of the variable atomic sentence (p, q, ...) on the sigma_1 sentence.

Bruno

Brent

--

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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p.

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

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I really do appreciate the details!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try.

This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time.

Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.

But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,

OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).

The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?

Define 'self-obedience'.

" The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x))."

You defined it: "it obeys itself". That is "self-obedience, no?

 

 

so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? 

Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories.

OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?

?

It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p -> Bp, for p sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).

(Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).

OK

 

 

How does it emerge? 

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no "action" involved!

Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, .... number sequence.

This puzzles me. How is the "recognition of action" and definitions and measures of action equivalent to action itself? The map is the territory? 

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)

 

 

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of "emergings"?

There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the "theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.

In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know.

 

Does it have to be "global"?

Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the whole of the Sigma_1 truth).

This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.

 

I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.

He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.

Yes, that "one" can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed on the collection of computations. A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/participation picture of Wheeler.

 

I reject that "God's eye view".

The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.

I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and will give us what we have.

 

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p.

That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains ever agreeing.

Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body. 

But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!. 

Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants. 

With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.  Computer science gives them on a plateau.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 

How does it emerge? 

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no "action" involved!

Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, .... number sequence.

This puzzles me. How is the "recognition of action" and definitions and measures of action equivalent to action itself?

They are not. Some actions can "happen" because some diophantine relations emulates some 'history'. The recognition of action will appear when the diophantine relation emulates some history involving self-aware universal numbers. They do the recognition relatively to that history. 

The map is the territory? 

The map is in the territory. There is a fixed point.

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)

OK. 

 

 

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of "emergings"?

There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the "theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.

In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know.

 

Does it have to be "global"?

Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the whole of the Sigma_1 truth).

This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.

Yes, but the 1p don't see it, and the eternity is not in the ontology, only in what the 1p misses.

 

I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.

He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.

Yes, that "one" can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed on the collection of computations.

Or not, but no matter what, that happens in infinitely many diophantine relations.

A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/participation picture of Wheeler.

I only give a problem. Solve it by any way you can, but try to translate it in term of the G/G*/S4Grz/XYZ to get the quanta/qualia distinction relevant in the comp mind body problem.

 

I reject that "God's eye view".

The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.

I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and will give us what we have.

It depends from what you search. 

Bruno

 

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

Step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

--

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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[meekerdb]

On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work.

Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?  Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.  People invented gods long before Peano and Godel and even before the idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were just anthropomorphized physics; things did what they did because "it was their nature".

Brent

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

 

 

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

 

 

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

 

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.

 

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

 

>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail.

Chris

 

Bruno

 

 

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last Supper" by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of "The Book", being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

 

No relevance to the present topic, of course.

 

 

--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work.

Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite? 

Yes. Our states are computable. But then they are distributed in the unavoidable infinity of computations going through that state (in the first person sense), making the experience undetermined on those computations.

Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?

Yes, indeed.

Bruno

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

I agree. The religious feeling appears when we are ignorant. Since always, some machine can introspect and discover the root of the intrinsic ignorance, and since Gödel & Al. we know that PA and ZF can do that, at least in some sense. Now, thunder can be very impressive, and it is normal that humans mix their feeling about that intrinsic ignorance and the one which today appears to us as more mundane and easily explainable from our current knowledge. But introspection still leads us to what we can't ever understand, and to that root of intrinsic ignorance about something transcendentally bigger than us. Institutionalized religion tries to hide that self-discovery for question of manipulation and control. 

Bruno

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

 

 

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

 

 

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

 

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.

 

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

 

>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief….

I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable.

Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). 

on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion;

Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.

it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail.

If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the "monopoly".

This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ...

Bruno

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

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

 Hear Hear!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

 

 

On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

 

 

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

 

 

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

 

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.

 

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

 

>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief….

 

 

>>I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable.

 

Yes, certainly. Terms and the usage of terms can be as slippery as an eel (though I have not handled any eels so I cannot verify that they are indeed slippery). Religion – at least this is my understanding of the term – derives from the Latin religo a verb tense meaning more or less to rebind – as in book binding where many pages are bound together into a larger cohesive whole bound book. Now there are several ways one can interpret that – the re-binding could have been intended to mean the re-bonding of the individual soul with the larger cosmic story – as told by that faith tradition; or it could mean the binding of many disparate individuals into a single church.

I tend to use religion to refer to the organizational and intellectual structures that are erected by faiths and are the manifestation of organized faith practice; while using spirituality (or spiritual experience) to indicate the exquisitely personal deep inner-experiences of those who seek and have faith – and that could be having faith in some religion. If they actively engage in seeking spiritual enlightenment etc. I  see that as a personal spiritual pursuit – even if they are doing so within the intellectual, doctrinal confines of some religion (i.e. organized faith based system).

 

>>Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). 

 

You can bet on that J Any idea or edifice of ideas seeking to explain everything is a prime candidate for takeover by that most deadly combination of wolves and the many sheep who follow them.

 

 

on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion;

 

 

>>Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.

 

I believe I thought; therefore I believe I am J

 

 

it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail.

 

>>If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the "monopoly".

 

One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is falsifiable.

 

>>This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ...

 

The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the emperor’s new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their assertion of knowing… so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to “pretend” – or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital ‘T’)

Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who delve into it – are quite a bit harder to sell. Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least in much of human history).

Cheers

Chris

 

Bruno

 

 

 

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p.

That's for woman and engineers. The doer.

Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am actually interested in the possibility of "artificial intelligence" as a reality, so these questions are not just an intellectual exercise.

 

It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains ever agreeing.

So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth. As I see things, we can derive the Platonic notion of trust by defining Absolute Truth as that which is incontrovertible for all possible entities.

 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.

 

Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body. 

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!

 

But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!. 

Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants. 

Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation other than your "canonical"? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.

 

With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.  Computer science gives them on a plateau.

I worry that science here has become "scientism".

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

  Could be... convalescing from the flu.... I will try to reply...

Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.

 

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen,

Did my message below slip past you?  I noticed you hadn't replied to it yet.

Jason

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here.

I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent.

How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be emergent.

The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.

This looks like an evasion. When the "its an illusion" answer doesn't work, try "its emergent" or some combination of the two. Come on.

Up above I said it was emergent and you said change cannot be emergent, so I clarified that even if change cannot be emergent, then the illusion of change (that is, the first person belief in a change which is not fundamentally real) can be emergent.

 

 

 

Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious.

 

 

The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand.

Right, that is good.

 

Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.

Isn't that how explanations work?

 

Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain.

All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one without the other.

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it.

 

 

Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.

You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge though.

 

Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?

From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible, the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.

All thought experiments involve an entity that is imagining them. Don't they get factored into the argument? My main argument is that the god's eye point of view is an idea that need to be rubbished once and for all. A lot of problems vanish if we dispense with it. No global time, no global truths, no absolute space, etc.

I disagree, I think the God's eye view reveals many of our first person ideas to be illusions: the idea of a moving time, the idea of a collapsing wave function, the idea of a single universe, the idea of owning a single body, etc., are all tricks played on us by our ego.

 

 

 

 

 

  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change.

It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look for explanations of it.

Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind the persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc.

  The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and misdirection...

Do you think a computer can be conscious?

Trick question?

No.

 

Are you a computer?

I believe my consciousness is instantiated by some computation.

 

Are you conscious?

Yes.

 

 

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe?

No, both have problems. Consciousness cannot be a passive phenomena. It is at least an activity.

Consciousness, like computation, is an active process, yes.

 

The "block-time universe" cannot contain conscious beings unless consciousness is passive.

I disagree, I think an active process can be embedded in a higher dimensional structure.

 

The moving present universe requires something equivalent to a string of husks that a consciousness uses to experience a moment, but there are many other serious problems with the idea.

 

 If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.

I reject both block-time and moving-present universes as problematic. Got any alternatives?

There is possibilism, which contains elements of both block-time and a moving-present universe, but if you wait long enough it gives you a block-time anyway...

Do you have any alternative you are satisfied with?

 

 

 

 

Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity, because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which all "nows" are equally real.

No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it.

Different parts of an object can exist in different times (not a single instant) for two different observers in the same place.  How can an older version of this object exist simultaneously with a younger version of this object, unless the object is a four-dimensional and exists in all its ages?  SR proves that the present cannot be infinitely thin, and actually can be made as spread out is as needed (given high enough speeds and large enough distances).

 

Conformally and faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there is no absolute space nor time.

That's not how Einstein understood it.

 

SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to navigate our local regions.

It is incompatible not only with an objective present, but also the idea that objects only exist at one instant of time. Imagine a device with two clocks separated by a pole.  One person standing still between the clocks says the clocks are synchronized.  Someone running to the left (and right next to the person standing still) will say the clock on the left runs ahead of the clock on the right, while a third person, running towards the right, will say the left clock runs behind the clock on the right.

So simultaneously, and in the same positions, you have the left-most clock read 12:00, 12:01, and 11:59 for each of the three observers, who each happen to be in the same place and at the same time.  How can the future state of the clocks exist together with the past state of the clock, if the present is only one instant?  In this example, the "present" which contains all that exists would have to be at least 2 minutes long to explain this situation, but then we can make the pole even longer, and the discrepancy of simultaneously existing clock states even greater..

 

  Additionally, the arguments that try to use SR and GR assume that the H.U.P. doesn't exist. Pfft, can you do better?

H.U.P? Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I don't see the relevance of it to these relativistic thought experiments.

It is known that position and momentum data of objects cannot be simultaneously defined, even for relativistic cases. Thought experiments that ignore basic known facts don't interest me.

Then nothing could interest you, since there are always facts we are not aware of (unless you believe we have all the facts already).

 

Jason

 

Jason

 

 

Jason

We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

  So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?

Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?

Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change your conscious state for x=2?

Jason

 

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Dear Brent,

   I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?

In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the graph of y = 2x + 7

Jason 

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Jason,

  I agree with this: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027

[Stephen Paul King]

For your entertainment and knowledge consumption:

http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-matrix/

[Chris de Morsella]

Thanks J

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 6:04 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

 

For your entertainment and knowledge consumption:

 

http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-matrix/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 

 

>>If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the "monopoly".

 

One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is falsifiable.

I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable.

 

>>This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ...

 

The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the emperor’s new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their assertion of knowing… so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to “pretend” – or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital ‘T’)

Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who delve into it – are quite a bit harder to sell.

Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big metaphysical surprises.

Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems.

Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least in much of human history).

OK.

Best,

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p.

That's for woman and engineers. The doer.

Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am actually interested in the possibility of "artificial intelligence" as a reality, so these questions are not just an intellectual exercise.

IF AI is a reality, that would be an incentive for comp. But comp is stronger that "strong AI". machine can think does not imply that only machine can think, so they might think, and we could still be non-machine. Logically. Psychologically, if strong AI is true, it is doubtful we are not machines, as we have no evidences for that at all.

 

It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains ever agreeing.

So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth.

That makes truth dependent on us. But truth, especially the transcendental, *is* supposed to be independent of us, beyond us, etc.

All you need for comp is the belief in "17 is prime", or "the machine i stop after k step on input j", etc.

As I see things, we can derive the Platonic notion of trust by defining Absolute Truth as that which is incontrovertible for all possible entities.

 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.

They exists in the arithmetical Platonia. That's a fact. You can't ignore it.

 

Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body. 

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!

Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"

 

But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!. 

Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants. 

Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation other than your "canonical"? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.

He is an expert in knot theory. G and G* are just advanced form of his Eigenforms. It is math, we can change the canonical, because the canonical is given by theorems, notably on those "eigenforms".

 

With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.  Computer science gives them on a plateau.

I worry that science here has become "scientism".

Why? That's seems to me to be a quite unfair gratuitous remark.

Nobody asks anyone to believe in comp, nor even in "17 is prime" (although you are asked this for the sake of the argument).

It is proved that if comp is correct, then the 1p and knowers are recovered by the most common definition of knowledge.

It is not scientism, it is reasoning in an hypothetical context. To confuse "reasoning" and scientism is bad philosophy, imo.

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King <Step...@provensecure.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

  Could be... convalescing from the flu.... I will try to reply...

Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.

 

 

Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious.

 

 

The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand.

Right, that is good.

 

Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.

Isn't that how explanations work?

 

Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain.

All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one without the other.

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it.

Hmm.... Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences.

Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all.

I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.

Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.

That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described.

Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).

So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to "religion" than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ...

Bruno

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

[LizR]

I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the "outside time" experience.

Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also this...

In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an "I", but instead a "not-I". Meaning and existence, pattern and colour become more significant than spatial relationships and time. Duration is replaced by a perpetual present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_doors_of_perception#Synopsis

(Maybe this is perceiving the reality of the Wheeler-deWitt equation!)

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno,

From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.

That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe.

Is that possible?

Richard

 

Bruno

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:

snip

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it.

Hmm.... Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences.

Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all.

I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.

Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.

That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described.

Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).

So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to "religion" than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ...

Bruno,

From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic

From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one).

and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.

This is unclear. What do you mean? 

Ah, you explain below.

That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe.

Is that possible?

The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. 

So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).

That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this).

Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp & Dt) , know (Bp & p), observe (Bp & Dt & p), feel (Bp & Dt & p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations.  

You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a confusion between two of those "number's points of view". 

I would even say that the *theological* errors comes from confusion between those points of view, and their "star extension", when translated in G*.

Incompleteness not only forces the division between truth and provable, captured by the star extensions, but it forbids to the correct or sound machine/numbers to confuse the hypostases. 

Subjective time appears in Bp & p, and in Bp & p & Dt,     (and in B^n p & p & D^m t. If n < m, then we get a corresponding quantization, so the arithmetical quantizations are graded, and I hope to find some arithmetical Temperley Algebra there ..., that would be a path in the explanation of some physical space)

Physical time? Open problem.

The 3p is a block reality, which does not even refer to any notion of time or space, or consciousness, or whatever.

But from the average 1p discourses of machines relatively implemented (in the computer science sense) in that arithmetical reality, taking into account the FPI (by the "& Dt", actually) and the first person (and its umbilical link with truth, by the "& p") you can see or understand that from inside things are quite dynamical, and full of sense. The consciousness of the sense might be a semantical fixed point. Universal numbers are windows through which the Arithmetical Reality can explore Itself. The price is that it can lost itself and get tricked in infinitely many ways.

To sum up the 3p reality is certainly a sort of block reality, but the many 1p realities, naturally associated to the 3p arithmetization of meta-arithmetic (Gödel) and its Theaetetus variants (the points of view), are dynamical, and full of qualia (accepting standard properties of them). 

Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality might have a universal 1p itself, which makes not much sense to me though, but if that was the case, the "whole truth" would plausibly be the initial consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness. I am still struggling on this. I made allusion to this with the notion of Galois connection, which exists between theories and models, name and things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p-person, etc.

What is sure, even provable and proved by machines like PA or ZF, is that there are many Löbian entities, much closer to truth than themselves, which might in some circumstances quite well approximate Truth, in a way "faking" all machines. An example is "true in all transitive models of ZF" (a model is transitive if it owns all the elements of its sets). Using comp, and working on simple correct machines, we can extract a lot from mathematical logic.

Bruno

Richard

 

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

[Richard Ruquist]

Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality contains an universal 1p-reality itself., which makes not much sense to me though, but if that was the case, the "whole truth" would plausibly be the initial consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness. I am still struggling on this. I made allusion to this with the notion of Galois connection, which exists between theories and models, name and things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p-person, etc.

Bruno: Here is where my string cosmology model has an advantage. 

As you know I think the particles of space that precipitate out of 4D-spacetime,

are like monads in that they reflect or perceive or are conscious of all other monads 

(in string theory either because they are a BEC or use r->1/r duality-mapping, or both).

My hypothesis is that they are also all distinct and perhaps even enumerable,

and hypothetically capable of computing the Arithmetic Reality including consciousness,

which of course would include a "3p reality [that] contains an universal 1p-reality itself,

corresponding to your Arithmetic Person.

"It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness."

which is also an aspect of my string cosmology that makes consciousness more fundamental

than I believe comp does.

Since Godel required transverse of 57 levels to get his theorems,

I conjecture that the simple basic monads form composites and finally Lobian entities at the higher levels.

You may not be interested, but I presume that you can verify or falsify that conjecture using mathematical logic..

[meekerdb]

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!

Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"

If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?

Brent

[Jason Resch]

To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period.

Jason 

[LizR]

Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have reservations about the MWI?) 

[LizR]

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.

[meekerdb]

Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?

Brent

[LizR]

I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent!

(...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :)

[meekerdb]

Last time that happened to me the "punishement" was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it.

Brent