- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:41:52 +0100

John,

Le 06-févr.-08, à 23:56, John Mikes a écrit :

*>
*

*> Bruno, here is my "out of order and off topic" remark.
*

*> ----------------------------
*

*> We are here in theoretical theorizing by theory-laden theoretic ways.
*

*> It is ALL the product of a mental exercise. Even a Loebian kick in
*

*> the ass can be a theoretical halucination.
*

I could agree. But then *all* theories are hallucinations, all right?

Even the baby's theories according to which they have a mother is a

theoretical hallucination, most probably emerging from a conversation

between billions of connected speculative amoeba/neurons betting on

some personal reality ...

*> You wrote:
*

*> "... - ...
*

*> But does 'M" exist? ,,, - ..."
*

*> (Never mind in what context. )
*

*>
*

*> "exist" is a hard word.
*

I am not so sure. I mean that in some context the question is clearcut

and meaningful (independently of the complexity of solving it).

In the current context K and S exists, by definition, and all their

descendants (their combinations) exist, by definition too. Now they

have all a rather well-defined behavior due to the behavior of K and S,

and the question of the existence of M (defined by its duplicator

behavior) is becoming a pure engineering problem. Ask me examples if

this is not clear.

*> Contemplating in a generalized way, I would say:
*

*> "Everything (not in Hal's sense) exists what we THINK of, if not
*

*> otherwise: in our ideas.
*

Yes sure. Actually K is so perverse (in the eyes of some logicians,

like Church) that some wants to say that K does not make sense, and

Curry (one of the (re)discover of K) defended the existence of K as an

idea of thought. Yes sure: eliminating something is a widespread idea.

*> Does 'K' or 'S' have a better than mental existential veracity?
*

I would suggest you to take a look at my paper "Theoretical computer

Science and the natural laws". In that paper I sum up (a bit roughly)

the Physics of Newton by "K does not exists (in nature)", and I sum up

the Physics of Einstein-Podolski-Rosen-Everett-Deutsch-Zurek-Wooters,

by "S does not exist". Indeed K eliminate information (like a

"classical black hole") and S duplicates arbitrary informations (a

problem in QM).

So yes K and S are on the mind side, not on the matter side. But this

is not needed in the present context, where I introduced S and K just

as an example of programming language (typically already on the mind

side).

*> We can
*

*> think of a symbol that it does or does not exist, it does not change
*

*> that it DOES indeed exist in our mental domain.
*

I don't understand that sentence. (don't confuse the symbol K with the

primitive instruction K defined by Kxy = x, it is the left- projection

or the right elimination: it send (x, y) on x (eliminating y).

*> Do you have a better 'domain' (e.g. a physical existence)? I doubt.
*

*> In our 1st person world it would not make sense.
*

Physical existence is, by UDA, at best a first person (plural)

construct. I recall you that in "my theory" (my favorite hallucination

which I try to share with you) numbers and combinators and alike exists

before anything material. Matter emerges as a relative border of the

machines/numbers ignorance. I do have a better 'domain': numbers

(integers). All the rest are number's hallucinations or first person

perspectives. But some hallucination can last lawfully, and the

question is why. With comp, the question can be made 100% math, and

that makes comp testable.

And if you don't like numbers, you could take directly combinators

instead (their are just less known for contingent reason like we have

digits).

*> -----------------------
*

*>
*

*> Excuse my rambling and please, consider it 'entertainment' rather than
*

*> discussion-post.
*

Your rambling could help me to make things clearer perhaps, but ok, the

deepest purpose here is fun and entertainment. Thanks for your

attention. Now I will hallucinate a bit on a cup of coffee ...,

Best,

Bruno

-------------

*> On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
*

*> wrote:
*

*>> Le 05-déc.-07, à 23:08, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> "But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I
*

*>> would just say "An existence of a universal language is not ruled
*

*>> out".
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically "not rule
*

*>> out".
*

*>> "Formally consistent" means "not formally ruled out", or "not
*

*>> refutable".
*

*>>
*

*>> That is:
*

*>>
*

*>> "Consistent(p") is the same as "~ Provable(~ p)" " ~" = negation
*

*>>
*

*>> like "Provable(p)" is equivalent with "~ Consistent( ~ p)"
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> Some thoughts:
*

*>> Thanks to Godel "completeness" theorem for the first order theory
*

*>> (1930) you can also read consistent(p) by there is a world
*

*>> satisfying p
*

*>> (a world "where" p is true).
*

*>>
*

*>> This relates a syntactical notion (the non existence of a chain of
*

*>> formula derived from the axioms by the use of the inference rules and
*

*>> ending with f) with a semantical: the existence of a mathematical
*

*>> structure satisfying the formula.
*

*>>
*

*>> At least in the frame of many formal classical theories, it is
*

*>> related
*

*>> to the recurrent modal duality:
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> Permitted p <====> ~ Obligatory ~p
*

*>> Obligatory p <====> ~ Permitted ~p
*

*>>
*

*>> Somewhere p <====> ~ Everywhere ~p
*

*>> Everywhere p <====> ~ Somewhere ~p
*

*>>
*

*>> Sometimes p <====> ~ Always ~p
*

*>> Always p <====> ~ Sometimes ~p
*

*>>
*

*>> Like the usual first order quantifiers: (Ax = for all x; Ex = it
*

*>> exists
*

*>> a x)
*

*>>
*

*>> Ex F(x) <====> ~ Ax ~ F(x)
*

*>> Ax F(x) <====> ~ Ex ~F(x)
*

*>> (all cats are ferocious <====> it does not exist a non ferocious
*

*>> cat)
*

*>>
*

*>> And with formal provability we have also:
*

*>>
*

*>> Consistent p <====> ~ provable ~p
*

*>> Provable p <====> ~ consistent ~p
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> But yes, it is by allowing the machine to crash, and actually by
*

*>> allowing it to crash in a *necessarily* not always predictible way,
*

*>> which makes it possible to be universal.
*

*>>
*

*>> In a nutshell: Universality ==> insecurity ====> kicking back reality
*

*>>
*

*>> and then
*

*>> (knowledge of your universality) ==> (knowledge of your relative
*

*>> insecurity) ====> (knowledge of a kicking back reality) ===>
*

*>> anticipating an independent "reality"
*

*>>
*

*>> (knowledge of your universality) = lobianity (this I intend to
*

*>> explain
*

*>> later)
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> Mirek asked also in trhe same post:
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> <<And my last question, consider the profound function
*

*>> f such that f(n) = 1 if there is a sequence of n consecutive fives in
*

*>> the decimal expansion of PI, and f(n) = 0 otherwise
*

*>> Is this an example of a partial computable function?>>
*

*>>
*

*>> Yes.
*

*>>
*

*>> <<Or is this function
*

*>> as such already considered as un-computable function?>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> It could be uncomputable on some value, that is, everywhere the
*

*>> function has value 1, you can in principle compute it (just search
*

*>> the
*

*>> sequence: if it exists you will find it because PI is constructive).
*

*>> If
*

*>> the value is zero, it could be that you will be able to know it, but
*

*>> it
*

*>> could be that you will never know it ...
*

*>>
*

*>> * * *
*

*>>
*

*>> Something else:
*

*>>
*

*>> Mirek, Brent, Barry, Tom (and all those inclined to do a bit of
*

*>> math):
*

*>> don't read what is following unless you don't want to find the
*

*>> crashing
*

*>> combinators by yourself.
*

*>>
*

*>> I give the solution for the crashing combinators: it is enough to ...
*

*>> mock a mockingbird.
*

*>>
*

*>> Raymond Smullyan calls "mocking bird" a combinator M such that Mx =
*

*>> xx.
*

*>> It is a sort of diagonalisor or duplicator. Now if you apply M on
*

*>> itself, M, that is if you evaluate MM, this matches the left of
*

*>> equation Mx = xx, so MM gives MM gives MM gives MM gives MM ...
*

*>> (crashing!).
*

*>>
*

*>> But does M exists? If you recall well, we know only the existence
*

*>> of K
*

*>> and S, and their descendants: like KK, KS, S(KS), SK(KS)(S(KK)), ...
*

*>>
*

*>> (Recall we don't write any left parenthesis, but something like
*

*>> SK(KS)(S(KK)) really abbreviate the result of applying (SK) to (KS)
*

*>> i.e. ((SK)(KS)) on (S(KK)), i.e.
*

*>> (((SK)(KS))(S(KK))). each combinator can be thought as a function of
*

*>> one variable (itself varying on the combinators).
*

*>>
*

*>> We search a combinator playing the role of M (defined by its behavior
*

*>> Mx = xx).
*

*>>
*

*>> We have only K, S, and their combinations. And we have the two axioms
*

*>> giving the behavior of K and S.
*

*>>
*

*>> Kxy = x K axiom
*

*>>
*

*>> and
*

*>>
*

*>> Sxyz = xz(yz) S axiom
*

*>>
*

*>> Explanation. You can see K as a projector sending (xy) on x, for any
*

*>> y.
*

*>> (imo it is the *subjective* entity per excellence, in particular K
*

*>> discards or eliminate informations like projection does. Church will
*

*>> not allow K or any eliminators in its main systems).
*

*>> Functionally K is Lx Ly . x The variable y is abstracted in some
*

*>> irrelevant way.
*

*>>
*

*>> We want Mx = xx.
*

*>> But xx does not match either x or xz(yz), so that we could use the
*

*>> axioms above directly.
*

*>> But imagine we dispose of the subroutine combinators I such that Ix =
*

*>> x. The identity combinators. Then Mx = xx = Ix(Ix), and this does
*

*>> match
*

*>> xz(yz), so that Ix(Ix) is really SIIx (in Sxyz = xz(yz), so SIIx =
*

*>> Ix(Ix) = xx. So SII can play the role of M, it behaves like M. We
*

*>> could
*

*>> define M by SII.
*

*>> Let us verify MM = SII(SII) does crash the system:
*

*>>
*

*>> SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) =
*

*>> I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = I(SII)(I(SII)) = SII(SII) = ...
*

*>> (crashing).
*

*>>
*

*>> Now we have to still find an identity combinator I such that Ix = x.
*

*>>
*

*>> Now x does match the right of the first axiom Kxy = x. Except that K
*

*>> on
*

*>> x wait for a second argument. So let us give to it a second argument
*

*>> such that we get something matching the second (S) axiom:
*

*>>
*

*>> x = Kx(Kx) = SKKx
*

*>>
*

*>> So SKK does the job. So we can take I = SKK.
*

*>> So M = SII = S(SKK)(SKK)
*

*>>
*

*>> and a crashing expression, sometimes called INFINITY is given by
*

*>>
*

*>> MM = SII(SII) = S(SKK)(SKK)(S(SKK)(SKK))
*

*>>
*

*>> So, a solution was
*

*>>
*

*>> S(SKK)(SKK)(S(SKK)(SKK))
*

*>>
*

*>> Remark:
*

*>> Note that an existential quantification "ExP(x)" is a sort of
*

*>> projection too. Eventually, the lobian machine
*

*>> observation-act-decision
*

*>> is just that: projection by elimination of worlds (elimination of
*

*>> accessibility of possibilities, a bit like when you get married, of
*

*>> get
*

*>> a job, etc ....).
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> Bruno
*

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Feb 07 2008 - 10:42:24 PST

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:41:52 +0100

John,

Le 06-févr.-08, à 23:56, John Mikes a écrit :

I could agree. But then *all* theories are hallucinations, all right?

Even the baby's theories according to which they have a mother is a

theoretical hallucination, most probably emerging from a conversation

between billions of connected speculative amoeba/neurons betting on

some personal reality ...

I am not so sure. I mean that in some context the question is clearcut

and meaningful (independently of the complexity of solving it).

In the current context K and S exists, by definition, and all their

descendants (their combinations) exist, by definition too. Now they

have all a rather well-defined behavior due to the behavior of K and S,

and the question of the existence of M (defined by its duplicator

behavior) is becoming a pure engineering problem. Ask me examples if

this is not clear.

Yes sure. Actually K is so perverse (in the eyes of some logicians,

like Church) that some wants to say that K does not make sense, and

Curry (one of the (re)discover of K) defended the existence of K as an

idea of thought. Yes sure: eliminating something is a widespread idea.

I would suggest you to take a look at my paper "Theoretical computer

Science and the natural laws". In that paper I sum up (a bit roughly)

the Physics of Newton by "K does not exists (in nature)", and I sum up

the Physics of Einstein-Podolski-Rosen-Everett-Deutsch-Zurek-Wooters,

by "S does not exist". Indeed K eliminate information (like a

"classical black hole") and S duplicates arbitrary informations (a

problem in QM).

So yes K and S are on the mind side, not on the matter side. But this

is not needed in the present context, where I introduced S and K just

as an example of programming language (typically already on the mind

side).

I don't understand that sentence. (don't confuse the symbol K with the

primitive instruction K defined by Kxy = x, it is the left- projection

or the right elimination: it send (x, y) on x (eliminating y).

Physical existence is, by UDA, at best a first person (plural)

construct. I recall you that in "my theory" (my favorite hallucination

which I try to share with you) numbers and combinators and alike exists

before anything material. Matter emerges as a relative border of the

machines/numbers ignorance. I do have a better 'domain': numbers

(integers). All the rest are number's hallucinations or first person

perspectives. But some hallucination can last lawfully, and the

question is why. With comp, the question can be made 100% math, and

that makes comp testable.

And if you don't like numbers, you could take directly combinators

instead (their are just less known for contingent reason like we have

digits).

Your rambling could help me to make things clearer perhaps, but ok, the

deepest purpose here is fun and entertainment. Thanks for your

attention. Now I will hallucinate a bit on a cup of coffee ...,

Best,

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Feb 07 2008 - 10:42:24 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*