On 11/08/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> That the 'comp reality' is founded on the number realm, is almost
> trivial. What is not trivial at all, and this is what the UDA shows, is
> that, once you say "yes" to the digital doctor, for some level of
> substitution, then your immateriality (somehow like the quantum
> superpositions) is contagious on your most probable neighborhoods. So
> that physics has to be shown to emerge statistically from the "measure"
> on the UD accessible relative states.
This perhaps needs to be explained more slowly. What - exactly - do
you mean by "immateriality", and "contagious on your most probable
neighbourhoods"? Also, precisely what do you intend to be included in
- or excluded from - the notion of 'physics' in this context? Is it
to be equated with what is observable, and if so, how and by whom?
> To be sure, it is needed,
> however, for the understanding that with comp, we *have to* derive the
> physics from "intensional numbers prevailing discourses". With comp,
> postulating a physical world cannot be used as an explanation relating
> mind and appearance of matter (memory-stable observations).
> It is not that (aristotelian primary )substance does not exist, but
> that such primary substance is provably (with the comp hyp) void of
> explanation power.
It strikes me, reading the above, that it might be a good idea to find
a way to limit ourselves - at this deliberately elementary stage - to
an agreed set of terms with which to designate each of your key ideas,
for example with respect to physics deriving from "intensional number
prevailing discourses". Perhaps what we need is not so much
grandmother-version, but a kindergarten-level introduction to the key
terms and concepts, which we can then use slowly and clearly to build
up the argument. At each stage, perhaps you could refer to the
appropriate points in the UDA, or other key papers, that could then be
consulted for comparison and further elucidation. Would this work?
> The best book is without
> doubt the one by Cutland:
>
> CUTLAND N. J., 1980, Computability An introduction to recursive
> function theory,
> Cambridge University Press.
Thanks
> OK. I will begin by saying two words on the language we will use when
> discussing with the machine. I can already explain the difference
> between the layman (or grandmother) and the logician. This is not just
> for you (I guess you know what I will say) but for those who just
> abandon logic for reason of notation.
>
> The main difference is that where a layman says "Alfred is serious",
> the logician says serious(Alfred).
>
> Where the layman will say there is a ferocious dog, a logician will say
> that it exists something such that that something is a dog and is
> ferocious. Because of laziness he will write Ex(dog(x) & ferocious(x)).
> For saying that all dogs are ferocious, he will say that for all dogs
> (i.e. choose any thing that is a dog) that things will be ferocious:
> and he will write Ax (dog(x) -> ferocious(x)).
>
> Of course, there is perhaps no effective test to see if a dog is
> ferocious or not, perhaps the notion is not well defined, but we have
> to live with things like that: even in the pure realm of numbers we
> will encounter some unexpected (I guess) complexity.
Thanks, this is useful.
> By the way, David, do you know what is called "classical propositional
> calculus", the truth table method? Do you need some refreshing?
> Some refreshing is in Smullyan's FU, but I can do it, or focus on some
> difficulty (classical propositional calculus is not so simple indeed,
> even if simpler than most other logics).
I can always use wikipedia - which I've looked at - or other sources
online, but anything you would also be prepared to do here would be
most helpful.
David
>
> Le 10-août-07, à 22:32, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> >
> > On 10/08/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> OK. Have you seen that this is going to made physics a branch of
> >> "intensional number theory", by which I mean number theory from the
> >> points of view of number ... ?
> >
> > Insofar as we accept that the foundation of 'comp reality' is the
> > number realm, comp physics must indeed be a branch of this (e.g. as
> > per my previous example of 'digital digestion').
>
>
> That the 'comp reality' is founded on the number realm, is almost
> trivial. What is not trivial at all, and this is what the UDA shows, is
> that, once you say "yes" to the digital doctor, for some level of
> substitution, then your immateriality (somehow like the quantum
> superpositions) is contagious on your most probable neighborhoods. So
> that physics has to be shown to emerge statistically from the "measure"
> on the UD accessible relative states. Withouth this, the arithmetical
> interview would not lead to making comp testable.
> This reasoning shows really the incompleteness of Everett's work: once
> you accept the observer can be locally described by its digital memory
> states, the laws of physics have to emerge from all comp histories.
> We can discuss that too, although it is not entirely needed for
> grasping how to derive physics from comp. To be sure, it is needed,
> however, for the understanding that with comp, we *have to* derive the
> physics from "intensional numbers prevailing discourses". With comp,
> postulating a physical world cannot be used as an explanation relating
> mind and appearance of matter (memory-stable observations).
> It is not that (aristotelian primary )substance does not exist, but
> that such primary substance is provably (with the comp hyp) void of
> explanation power.
>
>
> >
> >> OK. Don't buy it if you decide to buy only one book on Godel, and let
> >> me think which is the best one. But if you are willing to buy/read two
> >> books, then get it asap.
> >
> > 'In for a penny, in for a pound' (old English saying) - I've ordered a
> > cheap(ish) copy of Franzen on Godel. But let me know which you think
> > is the best one.
>
>
> Well, I should perhaps take the opportunity of your book open mindness
> to suggest some books I have already advertized on the list.
> Comp is related to computations, computing, and computability.
> Fortunately we will need mainly the computability theory, which in some
> sense is more easy than computing theory. The best book is without
> doubt the one by Cutland:
>
> CUTLAND N. J., 1980, Computability An introduction to recursive
> function theory,
> Cambridge University Press.
>
>
> Then, you have a "recreative" introduction to the modal logic of
> self-reference, the system known as G (but also GL, Prl, K4W, etc.).
> Unfortuantely the most important chapter "the heart of the matter" need
> a good understanding of Cutland (say) to make the link.
>
> SMULLYAN R., 1987, Forever Undecided, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
>
> Then, the best textbook on mathematical self-reference is the book by
> Boolos 1993. But this one is probably a bit heavy to begin with. So
> wait to see if your curiosity will be enough high. It does contain a
> full chapter on the "third hypostase"; alias the first person, alias
> the knower, alias the modal logic S4Grz, or its purely arithmetical
> interpretation.
>
> BOOLOS, G. 1993, The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press,
> Cambridge.
>
> Or perhaps better (lighter) is its predecessor book on the subject, in
> the lucky case you find it (in a library?). I would be Dover Edition, I
> would print a paperback of that book;
>
>
> BOOLOS, G. 1979, The unprovability of consistency. Cambridge
> University Press, London.
>
>
> Actually, if you have good eyes, the textbook by Smorynski is also
> quite valuable (and complementary to Boolos on many aspects):
>
> SMORYNSKI, C., 1985, Smoryński, P. (1985). Self-Reference and Modal
> Logic. Springer Verlag, New York.
>
>
>
> >>> I think we may have to come back later to this question of subjective
> >>> time. But for now I rely on you to set the agenda of our more
> >>> structured modus operandi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok thanks.
> >
> > Then for the rest, I'll wait for your next post.
>
>
>
>
> OK. I will begin by saying two words on the language we will use when
> discussing with the machine. I can already explain the difference
> between the layman (or grandmother) and the logician. This is not just
> for you (I guess you know what I will say) but for those who just
> abandon logic for reason of notation.
>
> The main difference is that where a layman says "Alfred is serious",
> the logician says serious(Alfred).
>
> Where the layman will say there is a ferocious dog, a logician will say
> that it exists something such that that something is a dog and is
> ferocious. Because of laziness he will write Ex(dog(x) & ferocious(x)).
> For saying that all dogs are ferocious, he will say that for all dogs
> (i.e. choose any thing that is a dog) that things will be ferocious:
> and he will write Ax (dog(x) -> ferocious(x)).
>
> Of course, there is perhaps no effective test to see if a dog is
> ferocious or not, perhaps the notion is not well defined, but we have
> to live with things like that: even in the pure realm of numbers we
> will encounter some unexpected (I guess) complexity.
>
> By the way, David, do you know what is called "classical propositional
> calculus", the truth table method? Do you need some refreshing?
> Some refreshing is in Smullyan's FU, but I can do it, or focus on some
> difficulty (classical propositional calculus is not so simple indeed,
> even if simpler than most other logics).
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 13 2007 - 11:37:34 PDT