It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:00, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
--
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/adfe0704-7258-426b-80cc-f4a4a967f2a2o%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/42839686-3300-4fb6-bc61-987be7103c1ao%40googlegroups.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/709a36da-30d1-4423-8edb-8ebb02d89d6co%40googlegroups.com.
On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AGIt's not unlike the monkey typing at random and coming up with Shakespeare's plays, or the Bible. AGUsing this analogy, it is more like the monkey typing *all* books. Except that the monkey is elementary arithmetic, and there is non need of randomness at that stage, and also, the books are not books, but true (semantic) relations implementing computations, and then physics is shown to be an internal measure, isolated from the Göde-Löb-Solvay theorem in the mathematics iff self-reference.The theory is Kxy = x together with Sxyz = xz(yz), as I have explained a year ago.The theology is the modal logics G and G*, and the intensional (modal) variants imposed by incompleteness, and all that is justified without using more than the two axioms above.“My” theory is a sub theory of al scientific theories.Look at the conceptual progresses even just on physics:Bohr:- the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis)- a dualist unintelligible theory of mind.Everett- the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis)- MechanismYour servitor:- arithmetic (a tiny part of arithmetic)- Mechanism.If “my" theory (which is actually a theorem showing that “my” theory is the Universal machine theory) predicts everything, then all theories predict everything.I suspect that you have not really try to understand the theory. It is not mine, it is the theory that any patient being can derive from mechanism and computer science/arithmetic. The hard work have already be done by Gödel, Kleene, Löb, and others. Two key theorems which summarise a lot are the two theorem by Solovay, which summarise the theology of the machine in one modal logic G*. Such question or read the papers if you want to really address the “mechanist mind-body problem”.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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AGIt's not unlike the monkey typing at random and coming up with Shakespeare's plays, or the Bible. AGUsing this analogy, it is more like the monkey typing *all* books. Except that the monkey is elementary arithmetic, and there is non need of randomness at that stage, and also, the books are not books, but true (semantic) relations implementing computations, and then physics is shown to be an internal measure, isolated from the Göde-Löb-Solvay theorem in the mathematics iff self-reference.The theory is Kxy = x together with Sxyz = xz(yz), as I have explained a year ago.The theology is the modal logics G and G*, and the intensional (modal) variants imposed by incompleteness, and all that is justified without using more than the two axioms above.“My” theory is a sub theory of al scientific theories.Look at the conceptual progresses even just on physics:Bohr:- the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis)- a dualist unintelligible theory of mind.Everett- the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis)- MechanismYour servitor:- arithmetic (a tiny part of arithmetic)- Mechanism.If “my" theory (which is actually a theorem showing that “my” theory is the Universal machine theory) predicts everything, then all theories predict everything.I suspect that you have not really try to understand the theory. It is not mine, it is the theory that any patient being can derive from mechanism and computer science/arithmetic. The hard work have already be done by Gödel, Kleene, Löb, and others. Two key theorems which summarise a lot are the two theorem by Solovay, which summarise the theology of the machine in one modal logic G*. Such question or read the papers if you want to really address the “mechanist mind-body problem”.BrunoI am not motivated to study your theory. If all computation are possible, it seems to imply, for example, that any G describes a possible Newtonian gravity law, but can't tell is which G corresponds to our universe, let alone show that Newton's law is just a weak field approximation of GR. AG
anyway.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/709a36da-30d1-4423-8edb-8ebb02d89d6co%40googlegroups.com.
On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
She writes, "If I have a scientific theory, it is either a good description of nature, or it is not." But that is just avoiding the question, which is how do we tell a theory that is a good description from a theory that is a bad description. Popper says making wrong predicitons means the theory is bad. He didn't say making correct predictions make a theory good...although Hossenfelder's made-up counter examples pretend that he did.
Obviously there are other criteria for a good theory: Consilience with other good theories. Broad scope of application. Precise and unambiguous predictions. Clarity and ease of comprehension. Hossenfelder advocates "explanatory power" as a better critereon. I think the preceding are what constitute explantory power in the scientific sense. Without that qualification things like "God did it" or "It's all simulated inside arithmetic" have perfect explanatory power.
Brent
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
She writes, "If I have a scientific theory, it is either a good description of nature, or it is not." But that is just avoiding the question, which is how do we tell a theory that is a good description from a theory that is a bad description. Popper says making wrong predicitons means the theory is bad. He didn't say making correct predictions make a theory good...although Hossenfelder's made-up counter examples pretend that he did.
Obviously there are other criteria for a good theory: Consilience with other good theories. Broad scope of application. Precise and unambiguous predictions. Clarity and ease of comprehension. Hossenfelder advocates "explanatory power" as a better critereon. I think the preceding are what constitute explantory power in the scientific sense. Without that qualification things like "God did it" or "It's all simulated inside arithmetic" have perfect explanatory power.
Brent
It's not clear, but a point she has made before is that although general relativity has a bunch of "confirmation" success, it is (literally) "wrong" (for very small stuff anyway), and quantum mechanics, which also has "confirmation" successes, is is incomplete. So both are ultimately failed theories.
Physicists who leap from the the "success" of the mathematics in the theories to claims about what physical stuff really is are clueless (in her view).
But as Jim Baggott has said (in a tweet), she is a sloppy writer.
@philipthrift
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f3405b30-dfe9-4e64-9332-0dcd77a8ca9fo%40googlegroups.com.
On 6/8/2020 2:24 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
She writes, "If I have a scientific theory, it is either a good description of nature, or it is not." But that is just avoiding the question, which is how do we tell a theory that is a good description from a theory that is a bad description. Popper says making wrong predicitons means the theory is bad. He didn't say making correct predictions make a theory good...although Hossenfelder's made-up counter examples pretend that he did.
Obviously there are other criteria for a good theory: Consilience with other good theories. Broad scope of application. Precise and unambiguous predictions. Clarity and ease of comprehension. Hossenfelder advocates "explanatory power" as a better critereon. I think the preceding are what constitute explantory power in the scientific sense. Without that qualification things like "God did it" or "It's all simulated inside arithmetic" have perfect explanatory power.
Brent
It's not clear, but a point she has made before is that although general relativity has a bunch of "confirmation" success, it is (literally) "wrong" (for very small stuff anyway), and quantum mechanics, which also has "confirmation" successes, is is incomplete. So both are ultimately failed theories.
I think that's strange meaning of "failed". 90% of (very successful) engineering is based on Newton and Maxwell. We will never know we have an ultimately successful theory even if we do have it.
Brent
Physicists who leap from the the "success" of the mathematics in the theories to claims about what physical stuff really is are clueless (in her view).
But as Jim Baggott has said (in a tweet), she is a sloppy writer.
@philipthrift
On 8 Jun 2020, at 18:29, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AGIt's not unlike the monkey typing at random and coming up with Shakespeare's plays, or the Bible. AGUsing this analogy, it is more like the monkey typing *all* books. Except that the monkey is elementary arithmetic, and there is non need of randomness at that stage, and also, the books are not books, but true (semantic) relations implementing computations, and then physics is shown to be an internal measure, isolated from the Göde-Löb-Solvay theorem in the mathematics iff self-reference.The theory is Kxy = x together with Sxyz = xz(yz), as I have explained a year ago.The theology is the modal logics G and G*, and the intensional (modal) variants imposed by incompleteness, and all that is justified without using more than the two axioms above.“My” theory is a sub theory of al scientific theories.Look at the conceptual progresses even just on physics:Bohr:- the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis)- a dualist unintelligible theory of mind.Everett- the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis)- MechanismYour servitor:- arithmetic (a tiny part of arithmetic)- Mechanism.If “my" theory (which is actually a theorem showing that “my” theory is the Universal machine theory) predicts everything, then all theories predict everything.I suspect that you have not really try to understand the theory. It is not mine, it is the theory that any patient being can derive from mechanism and computer science/arithmetic. The hard work have already be done by Gödel, Kleene, Löb, and others. Two key theorems which summarise a lot are the two theorem by Solovay, which summarise the theology of the machine in one modal logic G*. Such question or read the papers if you want to really address the “mechanist mind-body problem”.BrunoI am not motivated to study your theory.
If all computation are possible,
it seems to imply, for example, that any G describes a possible Newtonian gravity law, but can't tell is which G corresponds to our universe, let alone show that Newton's law is just a weak field approximation of GR. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42839686-3300-4fb6-bc61-987be7103c1ao%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/b27beb6d-967e-4c39-b2a5-6cc14836412bo%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42839686-3300-4fb6-bc61-987be7103c1ao%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/5926c4b1-b2bf-4eaa-9b6d-1074b53534eeo%40googlegroups.com.
On 8 Jun 2020, at 21:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
She writes, "If I have a scientific theory, it is either a good description of nature, or it is not." But that is just avoiding the question, which is how do we tell a theory that is a good description from a theory that is a bad description. Popper says making wrong predicitons means the theory is bad. He didn't say making correct predictions make a theory good...although Hossenfelder's made-up counter examples pretend that he did.
Obviously there are other criteria for a good theory: Consilience with other good theories. Broad scope of application. Precise and unambiguous predictions. Clarity and ease of comprehension. Hossenfelder advocates "explanatory power" as a better critereon. I think the preceding are what constitute explantory power in the scientific sense. Without that qualification things like "God did it”
or "It's all simulated inside arithmetic" have perfect explanatory power.
Brent
--
anyway.
@philipthrift
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/709a36da-30d1-4423-8edb-8ebb02d89d6co%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/12482c37-7cc7-f2bd-9c0d-c1081b78cae4%40verizon.net.
On 9 Jun 2020, at 00:42, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 6/8/2020 2:24 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:32:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 6/7/2020 11:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 10:00:46 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG
She writes, "If I have a scientific theory, it is either a good description of nature, or it is not." But that is just avoiding the question, which is how do we tell a theory that is a good description from a theory that is a bad description. Popper says making wrong predicitons means the theory is bad. He didn't say making correct predictions make a theory good...although Hossenfelder's made-up counter examples pretend that he did.
Obviously there are other criteria for a good theory: Consilience with other good theories. Broad scope of application. Precise and unambiguous predictions. Clarity and ease of comprehension. Hossenfelder advocates "explanatory power" as a better critereon. I think the preceding are what constitute explantory power in the scientific sense. Without that qualification things like "God did it" or "It's all simulated inside arithmetic" have perfect explanatory power.
Brent
It's not clear, but a point she has made before is that although general relativity has a bunch of "confirmation" success, it is (literally) "wrong" (for very small stuff anyway), and quantum mechanics, which also has "confirmation" successes, is is incomplete. So both are ultimately failed theories.
I think that's strange meaning of "failed". 90% of (very successful) engineering is based on Newton and Maxwell. We will never know we have an ultimately successful theory even if we do have it.
Brent
--
Physicists who leap from the the "success" of the mathematics in the theories to claims about what physical stuff really is are clueless (in her view).
But as Jim Baggott has said (in a tweet), she is a sloppy writer.
@philipthrift
@philipthrift
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f3405b30-dfe9-4e64-9332-0dcd77a8ca9fo%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/c3efbd25-5ffa-6b12-4a2e-4d7e532cb3e9%40verizon.net.
--
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/00de7a8e-1b82-40fc-8721-e98d1baecf96o%40googlegroups.com.
to obtain the weak field approximation of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is independent of the motions of source and recipient. AGI got my answer, by default. AG
--
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/4313005b-46dd-40dc-af15-743643cee643o%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
to obtain the weak field approximation of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is independent of the motions of source and recipient. AGI got my answer, by default. AG?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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
What I AM saying is that logic alone and the property of numbers do not have sufficient inherent information to distinguish the validity of physical theories,
where validity means predictability.
Good predictions are what we use to distinguish good theories,
and this has nothing to do with the ontological status of the physical universe.
As for "the observable available to all universal numbers", I also doubt that numbers can observe anything. AG
to obtain the weak field approximation of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is independent of the motions of source and recipient. AGI got my answer, by default. AG?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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4313005b-46dd-40dc-af15-743643cee643o%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/7398f81b-ad38-4bae-b08c-55486abc0712o%40googlegroups.com.
So when I say that a number can think, observe, or even just be (Turing) universal, it is always a short manner to say that relatively to some “base” phi_i, that number belongs to a (true) relation making it mirroring perfectly (at the mechanist substitution level) the behaviour of a person, as related to its brain.
Bruno
With QM: that selection (the wave collapse) is made more obvious, more tangible, and … more doubtful, and indeed, if we reject it, QM becomes a confirmation of the main startling aspect of mechanism (we have infinitely many relative “bodies”.where validity means predictability.Actually, I believe only that predictability of the absurd means non-validity. Non predictability by itself does not lead to non validity, unless … you take Aristotle physicalist stance at the start (which *is* invalid).
Good predictions are what we use to distinguish good theories,OK.and this has nothing to do with the ontological status of the physical universe.It has, if you want to predict some physical happening, you need either a physical universe to start with, or a theory which explains where the physical universe comes from.
With Mechanism, the first option is just not available, and you have to recover the *appearance* of the physical universe from some statistic on all computations going through your actual brain or body relative representation/incarnation/implementation. Without Mechanism you need a non mechanist theory of mind, which does not yet exist.As for "the observable available to all universal numbers", I also doubt that numbers can observe anything. AGA number cannot think, or make observation, per se. Nor can a physical body. Nor can anything purely third person describable.Nor can a number be universal per se.So when I say that a number can think, observe, or even just be (Turing) universal, it is always a short manner to say that relatively to some “base” phi_i, that number belongs to a (true) relation making it mirroring perfectly (at the mechanist substitution level) the behaviour of a person, as related to its brain.So, either you were mislead by my short way to express myself, or you are just asserting that you believe that the Mechanist philosophy is wrong. I am agnostic on all this. My point is that mechanism can be tested, and that the currently available evidences favour Mechanism, and quasi-disprove physicalism.Bruno
to obtain the weak field approximation of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is independent of the motions of source and recipient. AGI got my answer, by default. AG?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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4313005b-46dd-40dc-af15-743643cee643o%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7398f81b-ad38-4bae-b08c-55486abc0712o%40googlegroups.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4046c98-59fd-4e4a-9efd-43af044cb880o%40googlegroups.com.
With QM: that selection (the wave collapse) is made more obvious, more tangible, and … more doubtful, and indeed, if we reject it, QM becomes a confirmation of the main startling aspect of mechanism (we have infinitely many relative “bodies”.where validity means predictability.Actually, I believe only that predictability of the absurd means non-validity. Non predictability by itself does not lead to non validity, unless … you take Aristotle physicalist stance at the start (which *is* invalid).The physical universe manifests some level of existence, even if it's not the ultimate reality, and there's nothing absurd in testing physics with reference to this reality. AG
Good predictions are what we use to distinguish good theories,OK.and this has nothing to do with the ontological status of the physical universe.It has, if you want to predict some physical happening, you need either a physical universe to start with, or a theory which explains where the physical universe comes from.One can verify a physical theory without having a theory of the origin of the physical universe. Just do some measuring! AG
With Mechanism, the first option is just not available, and you have to recover the *appearance* of the physical universe from some statistic on all computations going through your actual brain or body relative representation/incarnation/implementation. Without Mechanism you need a non mechanist theory of mind, which does not yet exist.As for "the observable available to all universal numbers", I also doubt that numbers can observe anything. AGA number cannot think, or make observation, per se. Nor can a physical body. Nor can anything purely third person describable.Nor can a number be universal per se.So when I say that a number can think, observe, or even just be (Turing) universal, it is always a short manner to say that relatively to some “base” phi_i, that number belongs to a (true) relation making it mirroring perfectly (at the mechanist substitution level) the behaviour of a person, as related to its brain.So, either you were mislead by my short way to express myself, or you are just asserting that you believe that the Mechanist philosophy is wrong. I am agnostic on all this. My point is that mechanism can be tested, and that the currently available evidences favour Mechanism, and quasi-disprove physicalism.Brunoto obtain the weak field approximation of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is independent of the motions of source and recipient. AGI got my answer, by default. AG?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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4313005b-46dd-40dc-af15-743643cee643o%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7398f81b-ad38-4bae-b08c-55486abc0712o%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/6df13501-6c2d-49f8-9b88-9a468bde571eo%40googlegroups.com.
On 12 Jun 2020, at 11:52, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 4:43:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:So when I say that a number can think, observe, or even just be (Turing) universal, it is always a short manner to say that relatively to some “base” phi_i, that number belongs to a (true) relation making it mirroring perfectly (at the mechanist substitution level) the behaviour of a person, as related to its brain.BrunoBut can it be conscious?If “it” means the body, or the (extensional) number, the answer is no. Now, the person associated to all equivalent relative states can be conscious. Indeed, all relative universal number in arithmetic initiate a consciousness flux, and the physical reality emerges from that internal arithmetic flux, somehow. To be continued.Bruno
With QM: that selection (the wave collapse) is made more obvious, more tangible, and … more doubtful, and indeed, if we reject it, QM becomes a confirmation of the main startling aspect of mechanism (we have infinitely many relative “bodies”.where validity means predictability.Actually, I believe only that predictability of the absurd means non-validity. Non predictability by itself does not lead to non validity, unless … you take Aristotle physicalist stance at the start (which *is* invalid).The physical universe manifests some level of existence, even if it's not the ultimate reality, and there's nothing absurd in testing physics with reference to this reality. AGOK.Good predictions are what we use to distinguish good theories,OK.and this has nothing to do with the ontological status of the physical universe.It has, if you want to predict some physical happening, you need either a physical universe to start with, or a theory which explains where the physical universe comes from.One can verify a physical theory without having a theory of the origin of the physical universe. Just do some measuring! AGAbsolutely, but to get the qualia, you need to justify the appearance of the physical reality without invoking it.
Physics is just not metaphysics, nor theology, unless you assume physicalism, and in that case you will need some form of non-mechanist theory of mind, and you are out of the scope of my working hypothesis. You will have to present a non computational theory of mind, or just not doing metaphysics/theology.Bruno
With Mechanism, the first option is just not available, and you have to recover the *appearance* of the physical universe from some statistic on all computations going through your actual brain or body relative representation/incarnation/implementation. Without Mechanism you need a non mechanist theory of mind, which does not yet exist.As for "the observable available to all universal numbers", I also doubt that numbers can observe anything. AGA number cannot think, or make observation, per se. Nor can a physical body. Nor can anything purely third person describable.Nor can a number be universal per se.So when I say that a number can think, observe, or even just be (Turing) universal, it is always a short manner to say that relatively to some “base” phi_i, that number belongs to a (true) relation making it mirroring perfectly (at the mechanist substitution level) the behaviour of a person, as related to its brain.So, either you were mislead by my short way to express myself, or you are just asserting that you believe that the Mechanist philosophy is wrong. I am agnostic on all this. My point is that mechanism can be tested, and that the currently available evidences favour Mechanism, and quasi-disprove physicalism.Brunoto obtain the weak field approximation of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is independent of the motions of source and recipient. AGI got my answer, by default. AG?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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4313005b-46dd-40dc-af15-743643cee643o%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7398f81b-ad38-4bae-b08c-55486abc0712o%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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6df13501-6c2d-49f8-9b88-9a468bde571eo%40googlegroups.com.
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fd3f86b5-6fdf-432e-abf3-2b0ecc7cfa77o%40googlegroups.com.
With QM: that selection (the wave collapse) is made more obvious, more tangible, and … more doubtful, and indeed, if we reject it, QM becomes a confirmation of the main startling aspect of mechanism (we have infinitely many relative “bodies”.where validity means predictability.Actually, I believe only that predictability of the absurd means non-validity. Non predictability by itself does not lead to non validity, unless … you take Aristotle physicalist stance at the start (which *is* invalid).The physical universe manifests some level of existence, even if it's not the ultimate reality, and there's nothing absurd in testing physics with reference to this reality. AGOK.Good predictions are what we use to distinguish good theories,OK.and this has nothing to do with the ontological status of the physical universe.It has, if you want to predict some physical happening, you need either a physical universe to start with, or a theory which explains where the physical universe comes from.One can verify a physical theory without having a theory of the origin of the physical universe. Just do some measuring! AGAbsolutely, but to get the qualia, you need to justify the appearance of the physical reality without invoking it.Justifying the appearance of physical reality might be, and probably is an ultimate goal, but one should be able to determine which possible physical laws correspond to our universe without it. I don't believe this is possible solely via logic and the postulates of arithmetic, and I see nothing in your comments to convince me otherwise. AG
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/5dbcee8e-1813-404f-bd7f-d8550a123a0ao%40googlegroups.com.
The laws of physics are unique, and entirely determined by the arithmetical reality of the computations.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5dbcee8e-1813-404f-bd7f-d8550a123a0ao%40googlegroups.com.
On 13 Jun 2020, at 15:00, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
How In The Penrose-Hameroff Paradigm The Forms of Space-time Curvatures Can Be Connected With The Eternal Platonic Ideas Or Forms In The Qualia Of Our Experiences And ChoicesGerard Blommestijn (Amstelveen, Netherlands)
Crazy.Yes.Bruno
The laws of physics are unique, and entirely determined by the arithmetical reality of the computations.Can't there be a universe where gravity acts as 1/r^3? AG
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/b320c578-3217-44d1-aa31-0a4eb79f3d20o%40googlegroups.com.
On 14 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 5:26:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 13 Jun 2020, at 15:00, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:How In The Penrose-Hameroff Paradigm The Forms of Space-time Curvatures Can Be Connected With The Eternal Platonic Ideas Or Forms In The Qualia Of Our Experiences And ChoicesGerard Blommestijn (Amstelveen, Netherlands)Crazy.Yes.BrunoI found this to be the most interesting (in physical terms) by a grad student:Which abstract (talks or posters) is most interesting to you?Is Subjectivity a Field?
Greg Horne ( https://philosophy.utoronto.ca/directory/greg-horne/ )(Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ONTARIO Canada)(in Poster Sessions, TSC Consciousness Reboot, https://consciousness.arizona.edu/concurrents )@phiiiptjhrift
--
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/6cddb11d-c46b-4f37-bfe7-c37213bd030co%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b320c578-3217-44d1-aa31-0a4eb79f3d20o%40googlegroups.com.
You apparently use the CT theorem
to calculate all possible laws of physics,
but to determine which laws of physics correspond to our “universe"
(to actually discover anything), you must do measurements in THIS particular universe, which you claim doesn't exist. AG
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/2fb7a018-c2ad-48c0-87e8-0c141f9e3b66o%40googlegroups.com.
On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:21, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:I have liked the arguments about 15 years ago tween Hameroff and Penrose on one side and Max Tegmark on the other. What was involved with the idea that the brain's microtubles function as quantum computing, while Tegmark said, No it can't be because quantum computing involved insanely COLD environments and that is not the human brain. What Penrose and Hameroff were really promoting were quantum fields aka quantum electrodynamics, which we find everywhere in nature, including bird splat on the sidewalks. I could surely see that quantum fields functioning as a basis for consciousness. Tegmark and Hameroff ended their argument several years, ago, amicably, with Tegmark.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1813258408.966436.1592248875886%40mail.yahoo.com.
On 17 Jun 2020, at 22:25, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Bruno, we must also ask how well Goedel's maths fit the observable universe?
Is the Hubble Volume rotating or not?
We have not detected it through astronomy, yet it could still be possible. We'll know more (I believe) when we are able as a species, to place lots of massive telescopes at the edge of solar system, avoiding interference from solar emissions. Then, we will receive a better view of where we all are.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1118167777.518509.1592425521975%40mail.yahoo.com.