Computational statistics / Bruno

[Alan Grayson]

Among the infinite possibilities for the gravitational force, why, in the context of your theory, do we live in the world that apparently obeys the one consistent with Newton and Einstein? TIA, AG

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Feb 2020, at 23:03, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Among the infinite possibilities for the gravitational force, why, in the context of your theory, do we live in the world that apparently obeys the one consistent with Newton and Einstein? TIA, AG

I will answer this tomorrow.  

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e0e2808a-118d-44b6-8c16-424fab604f44%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 3:57:58 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2020, at 23:03, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Among the infinite possibilities for the gravitational force, why, in the context of your theory, do we live in the world that apparently obeys the one consistent with Newton and Einstein? TIA, AG

I will answer this tomorrow.  

Bruno

I might have missed it. Please answer the above question here, keeping in mind that the gravity formula in our world must have zero probability, given the infinity of hypothetical equations.  TIA, AG 

[smitra]

Note that we only have a finite amount of information about our universe
and the laws of physics that given it. So, even if an infinite amount of
information were needed to specify any given universe, including its
laws of physics, then the probability that things should have turned out
the way we observe it, would still be larger than zero given some
probability density over the continuum of possibilities.

Saibal

[Bruno Marchal]

I suggest we do this little step by little step. OK? It might help others too.

The 0th step is the definition I gave of Mechanism (aka Indexical Digital Mechanism). It is, as I think you have understood, the assumption that the brain/body works like a digital, or digitalisable machine, and that we can survive, at some relevant level of description, with an artificial digital body/brain. At this stage, the artificial brain is still physically implemented. 

That is what I will call step 0. You are not asked if you personally believe or not, in this. It is my basic assumption, from which, by reasoning, I will explain what you ask. 

More precisely, Mechanism is 

1) the Church Turing thesis (but this is used only in step seven, so don’t worry too much about it, before we get there). It is needed to obtain the purely mathematical definition of digital machine. Note that the Church-Turing thesis requires elementary arithmetic to make sense. I hope that you have no problem with 2+2=4, nor with deriving from "2+2=4" that "it exists a number x such that x + 2 = 4", OK?

2) it exists a level of description of my body such that I can survive with a digital artificial brain/body. I will just say brain, but if someone claim that the neural network in the belly plays a key role in his consciousness, the “artificial brain” will have to emulate that neural net too. The thought experiments are simpler when assuming a high level of description (like the neuronal level), but in step seven, this suppelemtary hypothesis will be discharged. The consequences will not depend on the choice of the substitution level. The brain might be the entire cluster of galaxies around us, described by superstring theory, with 10^34 decimals, and the reasoning will still go through, even if the shout experiment becomes unfeasible.

Any question up to here?

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/11a3ce89-b59c-4c87-9b4d-1e60627b3ee2%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/3/2020 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 2 Mar 2020, at 14:02, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 3:57:58 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2020, at 23:03, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Among the infinite possibilities for the gravitational force, why, in the context of your theory, do we live in the world that apparently obeys the one consistent with Newton and Einstein? TIA, AG

I will answer this tomorrow.  

Bruno

I might have missed it. Please answer the above question here, keeping in mind that the gravity formula in our world must have zero probability, given the infinity of hypothetical equations.  TIA, AG 

I suggest we do this little step by little step. OK? It might help others too.

The 0th step is the definition I gave of Mechanism (aka Indexical Digital Mechanism). It is, as I think you have understood, the assumption that the brain/body works like a digital, or digitalisable machine, and that we can survive, at some relevant level of description, with an artificial digital body/brain. At this stage, the artificial brain is still physically implemented. 

That is what I will call step 0. You are not asked if you personally believe or not, in this. It is my basic assumption, from which, by reasoning, I will explain what you ask. 

More precisely, Mechanism is 

1) the Church Turing thesis (but this is used only in step seven, so don’t worry too much about it, before we get there). It is needed to obtain the purely mathematical definition of digital machine. Note that the Church-Turing thesis requires elementary arithmetic to make sense. I hope that you have no problem with 2+2=4, nor with deriving from "2+2=4" that "it exists a number x such that x + 2 = 4", OK?

2) it exists a level of description of my body such that I can survive with a digital artificial brain/body. I will just say brain, but if someone claim that the neural network in the belly plays a key role in his consciousness, the “artificial brain” will have to emulate that neural net too. The thought experiments are simpler when assuming a high level of description (like the neuronal level), but in step seven, this suppelemtary hypothesis will be discharged. The consequences will not depend on the choice of the substitution level. The brain might be the entire cluster of galaxies around us, described by superstring theory, with 10^34 decimals, and the reasoning will still go through, even if the shout experiment becomes unfeasible.

But this is wrong.  First, when you suggest that you can survive with a digital artificial brain/body everyone understands you are thinking of something like a robot, which exists within an environment.  The environment is essential for you survival...not just physically so that the robot can function, but also for the informational flow to and from your artificial brain.  A brain with no input/output cannot function (except maybe as a mathematician.  :-) )

Second, you attempt to anticipate this criticism by saying you can include the whole galaxy, or even the universe, in your robotic emulation.  But then later you renege on this and claim that you've shown physics to be derivative rather than necessary.

Brent

Any question up to here?

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/11a3ce89-b59c-4c87-9b4d-1e60627b3ee2%40googlegroups.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/407A03D5-EC15-4D2C-A538-E8D316BEE1FE%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 3 Mar 2020, at 18:42, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 3/3/2020 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 2 Mar 2020, at 14:02, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 3:57:58 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2020, at 23:03, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Among the infinite possibilities for the gravitational force, why, in the context of your theory, do we live in the world that apparently obeys the one consistent with Newton and Einstein? TIA, AG

I will answer this tomorrow.  

Bruno

I might have missed it. Please answer the above question here, keeping in mind that the gravity formula in our world must have zero probability, given the infinity of hypothetical equations.  TIA, AG 

I suggest we do this little step by little step. OK? It might help others too.

The 0th step is the definition I gave of Mechanism (aka Indexical Digital Mechanism). It is, as I think you have understood, the assumption that the brain/body works like a digital, or digitalisable machine, and that we can survive, at some relevant level of description, with an artificial digital body/brain. At this stage, the artificial brain is still physically implemented. 

That is what I will call step 0. You are not asked if you personally believe or not, in this. It is my basic assumption, from which, by reasoning, I will explain what you ask. 

More precisely, Mechanism is 

1) the Church Turing thesis (but this is used only in step seven, so don’t worry too much about it, before we get there). It is needed to obtain the purely mathematical definition of digital machine. Note that the Church-Turing thesis requires elementary arithmetic to make sense. I hope that you have no problem with 2+2=4, nor with deriving from "2+2=4" that "it exists a number x such that x + 2 = 4", OK?

2) it exists a level of description of my body such that I can survive with a digital artificial brain/body. I will just say brain, but if someone claim that the neural network in the belly plays a key role in his consciousness, the “artificial brain” will have to emulate that neural net too. The thought experiments are simpler when assuming a high level of description (like the neuronal level), but in step seven, this suppelemtary hypothesis will be discharged. The consequences will not depend on the choice of the substitution level. The brain might be the entire cluster of galaxies around us, described by superstring theory, with 10^34 decimals, and the reasoning will still go through, even if the shout experiment becomes unfeasible.

But this is wrong.  First, when you suggest that you can survive with a digital artificial brain/body everyone understands you are thinking of something like a robot, which exists within an environment.  The environment is essential for you survival...not just physically so that the robot can function, but also for the informational flow to and from your artificial brain.  A brain with no input/output cannot function (except maybe as a mathematician.  :-) )

If the environment plays a role, then by definition, it is part of the brain (the portion of the physical reality that you need to emulate to keep your consciousness on. 

A universal machine cannot distinguish an “environment” from another universal machine, except by looking below its substitution level, in which case the “environment” is what emerge, relatively, from all computations.

Second, you attempt to anticipate this criticism by saying you can include the whole galaxy, or even the universe, in your robotic emulation. 

?

But then later you renege on this

?

and claim that you've shown physics to be derivative rather than necessary.

I am sorry but I do not understand. 

It is the burden of those who believe in or assume the necessity of a primary physical reality to explain what it is, and how such a reality manages to prevent a digital being from accessing a continuation among the infinity of continuations which supports him in the arithmetical or any Turing complete reality (assumed in all theories of physics).

Your argument seems only to criticise Mechanism, not the fact that Mechanism makes the mind-body problem into a reduction of physics to a statistics on computations (seen from the 1p (plural) pov)). If the physical environment plays a role which would be non Turing emulable, *and* non first person statistically recoverable, then Mechanism is simply false, and that would conclude my point by a reductio ad absurdum. 

Bruno

Brent

Any question up to here?

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/11a3ce89-b59c-4c87-9b4d-1e60627b3ee2%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/407A03D5-EC15-4D2C-A538-E8D316BEE1FE%40ulb.ac.be.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0275b9b3-debd-dd5d-fd5e-81509d2d423c%40verizon.net.