--
Onward!
Stephen
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't really know, but one starts with one point (a number ?)
then two points to form a line, then rotation of that line to form
an angle and a plane as well. I don't see why comp can't do all of that.
On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp
> universe?
The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing sense)
by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine
polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all possible
mathematical structure.
This answer your question,
but the real genuine answer should explain
why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here
the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see
themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.
In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to typical
topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von
Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully quantum
computers.
No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates
even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial
conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to
participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not
zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Hi Craig Weinberg
According to Kant, the fundamentals or primitives of spacetime objects
are the two fundamental (inextended) intuitions:
1) a sliver of time alone (showing when something happens)
and 2) a frame of space alone (showuing what happens).
If you join these primitives, then you get an extended object in
spacetime.
-- Onward! Stephen
Onward! Stephen
-- Onward! Stephen
Hi Craig,
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally true. This does not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to prove via a method of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on this today: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.htm
On 07 Nov 2012, at 19:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:49:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp
> > universe?
>
> The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing sense)
> by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine
> polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all possible
> mathematical structure.
>
> This answer your question,
>
> It sounds like you are agreeing with me that yes, there is no reason
> that arithmetic would generate any sort of geometric or topological
> presentation.
"Generating geometry" is a too vague expression.
Keep in mind that if comp is true, the idea that there is more than
arithmetical truth, or even more than some tiny part of it, is
(absolutely) undecidable. So with comp a good ontology is just the
natural numbers. Then the relation with geometry is twofold: the usual
one, already known by the Greeks and the one related to computer
science, and its embedding in arithmetic.
> Or are you saying that because geometry can be reduced to arithmetic
> then we don't need to ask why it exists? Not sure.
Geometry is a too large term. I would not say that geometry is reduced
to arithmetic without adding more precisions.
>
> but the real genuine answer should explain
> why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here
> the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see
> themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.
>
> In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to typical
> topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von
> Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully quantum
> computers.
>
> No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates
> even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial
> conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to
> participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not
> zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).
>
> The question though, is why is arithmetic emulating anything to
> begin with?
Because arithmetic (the natural numbers + addition and multiplication)
has been shown Turing complete. It is indeed not obvious. In fact you
can even limit yourself to polynomial (of degree four) diophantine
relation. But you can use any Turing complete system in place of
arithmetic if you prefer.
I will give a proof of arithmetic Turing universality on FOAR, I will
put it here in cc.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Hi Craig,
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
��� Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally true. This does not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to prove via a method of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on this today: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.htm
Unfortunately that page seems to be gone?
I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't objectively true though, I'm saying that arithmetic comes from sense and not the other way around. The fact that geometry is arithmetically redundant I think supports that if not proves it. If comp were true, the universe would not and could not have any geometry.
Craig
�
"When truths don't commute. Inconsistent histories.
When the uncertainty principle is being presented, people usually � if not always � talk about the position and the momentum or analogous dimensionful quantities. That leads most people to either ignore the principle completely or think that it describes just some technicality about the accuracy of apparatuses.
However, most people don't change their idea what the information is and how it behaves. They believe that there exists some sharp objective information, after all. Nevertheless, these ideas are incompatible with the uncertainty principle. Let me explain why the uncertainty principle applies to the truth, too."
Please read the read at his website
-- Onward! Stephen
> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?
If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space.
For example, make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.
Look at i, it sits one unit above the real horizontal axis so draw a line from the real numbers to i, so if you multiply i by i (i^2) it rotates to become −1, multiply it by i again(i^3) and it becomes −i, multiply it by i again (i^4) and it becomes 1, multiply it by i again (i^5) and you've rotated it a complete 360 degrees and you're right back where you started at i.
It is this property of rotation that makes i so valuable in dealing with things that rotate in space, the best example may be electromagnetism where Maxwell used it to describe how electric and magnetic fields change in the X and Y direction (that is to say in the Real and Imaginary direction) as the wave propagates in the Z direction.
John K Clark
>> If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space.
> I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects, movement, space, or rotation in a comp universe.
> You can prove this by understanding that there are no objects or spaces actually moving around in the chips of your computer.
>> make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.
> Do you understand why computers don't need to do that?
> This is my point, we have visual intuition because we have visual sense as a method of participating in a universe of sense. It would be meaningless in a universe of arithmetic.
> I am saying, IF the universe were purely functional,
> Why would there even begin to be a theoretical underpinning for a universe which remotely resembles this one?
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:>> If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space.
> I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects, movement, space, or rotation in a comp universe.
I don't know what a "comp universe" is because I no longer know what "comp" means and I no longer believe that Bruno, the inventor of the term, does either. But I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.
> You can prove this by understanding that there are no objects or spaces actually moving around in the chips of your computer.
Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain.
>> make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.
> Do you understand why computers don't need to do that?
I said a lot of stuff so I'm not sure what "that" refers to (sometimes pronouns can really suck) but apparently you believe that computers have some innate ability that humans lack, there is something computers already know and so "don't need to do that".
I do know that computers calculate with complex numbers all the time, especially when rotation in 3D is important, such as calculations involving Maxwell's or Schrodinger's equation.> This is my point, we have visual intuition because we have visual sense as a method of participating in a universe of sense. It would be meaningless in a universe of arithmetic.
I would maintain that computers are already far better than humans in determining what a complex object will look like when it is rotated.
> I am saying, IF the universe were purely functional,
I don't know what that means, is the universe broken?
> Why would there even begin to be a theoretical underpinning for a universe which remotely resembles this one?
I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.
John K Clark
>> I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.
> It bothers me because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a universe of experiences full of objects and positions can be reduced to a mechanism
> What I am pointing out is that what comp implies is a universe which looks and feels nothing like the one which we actually live in.
> It does present a plausible range of logical functions which remind us of some aspects of our minds, but I think that there is another reason for that, which has to do with the nature of arithmetic.
>> Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain.
> That doesn't matter.
> My point is that our senses require a particular presentation of forms and experience for us to consciously make sense,
> I would agree that it [a computer] is better at plotting such a complex object rotation on a screen for us to admire, but the computer itself wouldn't know an object from a string of bank transactions. Computers know nothing,
> What a computer does is no different than what a lever does when a metal ball falls on to one side of it and the other side rises.
> You will likely tell me again that potassium ions are no different, and you aren't wrong, but the difference is that we know for a fact that potassium ions are part of an evolved self organizing biological system that thinks
> and feels
> while no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.
>> I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.
> Yet you claim to be omniscient about what I can't know.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:>> I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.
> It bothers me because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a universe of experiences full of objects and positions can be reduced to a mechanism
But a universe without electrons or time or space or bits or logic does make sense? Lack of logic makes sense?
> What I am pointing out is that what comp implies is a universe which looks and feels nothing like the one which we actually live in.
I'm not here to defend "comp", that's Bruno's job, I don't even know what the word means.
> It does present a plausible range of logical functions which remind us of some aspects of our minds, but I think that there is another reason for that, which has to do with the nature of arithmetic.
So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.
>> Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain.
> That doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter?! If I change the position of those potassium and sodium ions in your brain it will matter very much to you because your consciousness will change. Yes that's right, the position of those "meaningless objects" can be the difference between ecstasy and suicidal depression, and you Craig Weinberg will never find anything that matters more than that.
> My point is that our senses require a particular presentation of forms and experience for us to consciously make sense,
Einstein had access to the same raw data as everybody else, but being a genius he could make sense out of it even though the data was not presented in a ideal way, and once he had done that he could teach those with less powerful minds, like you and me, how to make sense out of it too. Exactly the same is true of computers.
> I would agree that it [a computer] is better at plotting such a complex object rotation on a screen for us to admire, but the computer itself wouldn't know an object from a string of bank transactions. Computers know nothing,
I would like to know how you know that computers know nothing. Did that knowledge come to you in a dream?
> What a computer does is no different than what a lever does when a metal ball falls on to one side of it and the other side rises.
Well... A computer is no different from a few hundred trillion levers interconnected in just the right way that rise and fall several billion times a second, and you're no different from that either.
> You will likely tell me again that potassium ions are no different, and you aren't wrong, but the difference is that we know for a fact that potassium ions are part of an evolved self organizing biological system that thinks
Yes.> and feels
Although other evolved self organizing biological system behave as if they feel there is only one that I know for a fact actually does feel, and it goes by the name of John Clark. My hunch is that other biological systems can feel too, my hunch is that being biological is not necessary for that to happen but I don't know it for a fact.
> while no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.
A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.
>> I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.
> Yet you claim to be omniscient about what I can't know.
I didn't specifically mention you, but if you have a guilty conscience don't blame me, and I do seem to remember you saying something about having solved the "AI hard problem", nobody seems very clear about exactly what that problem is but it certainly sounds hard.
John K Clark
> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.
>> So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.
> It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality.
> They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me.
> what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation.
> There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself.
> Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery,
> not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge.
> How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot?
> we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies.
> We are not an assembly of disconnected parts.
>>> no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.
>> A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.
> It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore it never gets chance to repeat itself.
> you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat.
> I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.
There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?
>> So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.
> It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality.
The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said "minds" and not " Craig Weinberg's mind".
> They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me.
OK, there is no disputing matters of taste.
> what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation.
Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?
> There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself.
To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so.
And there may not be a theory to explain why but there is not the slightest doubt that changes in those potassium and sodium ions cause PROFOUND changes in your consciousness and your subjective emotional state. So if ions in a few pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your shoulders can create consciousness
I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that electrons in a semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they produce the same behavior.
> Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery,
OK.> not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge.
What's the difference?
> How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot?
I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails the Turing Test.
> we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies.
A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't know how it does it.
> We are not an assembly of disconnected parts.
Nothing is "an assembly of disconnected parts".
>>> no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.>> A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.
> It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore it never gets chance to repeat itself.
It's true that a real computer, unlike a theoretical Turing Machine, does not have a infinite memory and so can't be in a infinite number of states, but you don't have a infinite memory either and so your brain can't be in a infinite number of states. You and the computer are in the same boat.
> you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat.
If you believe that a real computer can't finishing peating and thus can't repeat I take it that you're retracting your comment that a computer just does "the same thing over and over again".
> I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness
And your approach is that people are conscious because they use free will to make decisions and they use free will to make decisions because they are conscious. That doesn't sound very hard to me, or very deep.
John K Clark
>>> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.
>> There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?
> A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.
> Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.
> The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating consciousness.
> the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole.
> It isn't even a computer,
> Machines have parts which can be fastened, welded, or soldered together, but they are still disconnected
> it's just [...]
> A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents semantically,
> but there is nothing there that cares about it.
> Consciousness itself is an elaboration of sense, which is the capacity to make a difference and detect differences.
> People are conscious and have free will
> We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and describe the flavor of the carrots.
Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:>>> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.
>> There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?
> A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.
First you're complaining that there is no relationship between numbers and geometry and now you're complaining that there is a relationship. Make up your mind what you're unhappy about!
> Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.
Don't be ridiculous. There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.
> The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating consciousness.
That is provably untrue. That is provably untrue. If I change your brain your consciousness changes and if you change your consciousness your brain changes.
> the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole.
I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.
> It isn't even a computer,
I see, a computer isn't a computer and X is not Y and X is not not Y. No, I'm wrong, I don't see.
> Machines have parts which can be fastened, welded, or soldered together, but they are still disconnected
And now connected things are disconnected. I suppose black is white too.
> it's just [...]
It's just something that can perform most intellectual tasks and beat the hell out of you at many of them, things that until just a few years ago most were convinced only humans could accomplish.
> A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents semantically,
Just like a brain.
> but there is nothing there that cares about it.
I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.
> Consciousness itself is an elaboration of sense, which is the capacity to make a difference and detect differences.
Like a thermostat.
> People are conscious and have free will
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
> We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and describe the flavor of the carrots.
That sounds like fun, lets do it!
> I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for arithmetic.
>> There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.
>A correlation among patterns in brain activity and acoustic vibration does not imply that vibrations in the air turn into an experience of sound.
> A computer is a collection of switches,
> but it is only a collection in our imagination.
> The switches don't know that they are part of a collection.
> They don't know there is a computer
> Computers are great at doing very boring things very quickly.
"Nyeaaah...What's up Doc?"
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:> I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for arithmetic.
Pythagoras discovered and proved his famous theorem using geometry, only later was it expanded into the world of numbers.
>> There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.
>A correlation among patterns in brain activity and acoustic vibration does not imply that vibrations in the air turn into an experience of sound.
There is a test to determine which of our competing claims is true. Lets monitor a composers brain, say John Williams, and see if Crack makes the neurons in his brain fire in a atypical manner, if it does let him compose some music under the influence of Crack. Then we bring in a panel of music critics and ask them if the new composition is in Williams typical style. Do you really think they will say it sounds just like the Star Wars theme?
> A computer is a collection of switches,
Yes.> but it is only a collection in our imagination.
Bullshit.
> The switches don't know that they are part of a collection.
Yes, and a neuron in your brain doesn't know it's part of a collection.
> They don't know there is a computer
And a neuron doesn't know there is a brain.
> Computers are great at doing very boring things very quickly.
That's why people are so bored with computers, boring computers like Xbox's and iPones and Blu Ray players and iPods.