On 18 Aug 2009, at 22:43, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Any physcial theory is distinguished from an
>>> Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only
>>> some
>>> possible mathematical structures. That is a general statement that
>>> is not affected by juggling one theory for another. I have further
>>> defined PM in *terms* of such contingency.
>>
>> That is actually very nice, because it follows the Plato-Aristotle-
>> Plotinus definition of matter which I follow in AUDA.
>> And this is enough for showing we don't have to reify matter (nor
>> numbers).
>
> If you are not reifying anything. then there is nothing, hen there is
> no UD.
I think you have a magical conception of reality.
I don't need to reify number to believe in them.
I just need to play with them.
>
>> I don't see, indeed, how you can both define matter from contingent
>> structures and still pretend that matter is primitive.
>
> I am saying that material existence *is* contingent
> existence. It is not a structure of anything.
Plotinus says that too! Me too.
With church thesis this is can be made more precise in term of not-
computable or not-provable, or some relativizations.
>
>> Somehow you talk like you would be able to be *conscious* of the
>> existence of primitive matter.
>
> Well, at least I don't talk about immaterial machines dreaming each
> other.
In arithmetic, that happens all the time. More below.
>
>> All the Peter Jones which are generated by the UD, in the Tarski or
>> Fregean sense, (I don't care), will pretend that primitive matter
>> does
>> not exist, and if your argument goes through, for rational reason and
>> logic (and not by mystical apprehension), those immaterial Peter
>> Jones
>> will prove *correctly* that they are material, and this is a
>> contradiction.
>
> It's not a contradiction of materialism. If there are no immaterial
> PJ's, nothing is believed by them at all.
Once you say yes to the doctor, there are immaterial Peter Jones. All
your doppelganger emulating you, and being emulated at your level of
substitution and below relatively occuring in the proof of the Sigma_1
sentences of Robinson Arithmetic. (The arithmetical version of the UD).
>
>> So to save a role to matter, you will have to make your
>> "consciousness
>> of primitive matter" relying on some non computational feature.
>
> No. I just have to deny immaterial existence.
You have to deny the theorem of elementary arithmetic, which are used
by physicists (mostly through complex or trigonometric functions,
which reintroduce the natural numbers in the continuum).
> You keep confusing the
> idea
> that theoretical entities could hypothetcially have certain beliefs
> with the
> actual existence of those entities and beliefs.
You underestimate the dumbness of the DU, or sigma_1 arithmetic. It
contains the emulation of all the quantum states of the milky way,
with correct approximation of its neighborhood. It is hard to
recognize Peter Jones or Bruno Marchal from the huge relation and huge
numbers involved, in some emulations, but it is easy to prove there
exists, from the information the doctor got when scanning your brain.
In computations enough similar than our own most probable current one,
it is a "theorem" that those entities have such or such beliefs, and
behave in such and such ways, developing such and such discourses.
>
>> Note that if you accept "standard comp", you have to accept that
>> "Peter Jones is generated by the UD" makes sense, even if you cease
>> to
>> give referents to such "Peter Jones".
>
> False. Standard comp says nothing about Platonism or AR.
> I can give a Johnsonian refutation of the UD. I can't see it,
> no-one can see it, so it ain't there.
Standard comp says nothing about Plato's Platonism, but once you take
the digitalness seriously enough, and CT, it is just standard computer
science.
See "conscience & mécanisme" appendices for snapshot of a running
mathematical DU. It exists mathematically. But it can be implemented
"materially" , i.e. relatively to our most probable computations too.
>
>> Fregean sense is enough to see
>> that those Peter Jones would correctly (if you are correct) prove
>> that
>> they are material, when we know (reasoning outside the UD) than they
>> are not.
>
> So? That doesn't man I am wrong, because it doesn't mean I am in
> the UD. The fact that we can see that a BIV has false beliefs
> doesn't make us wrong
> about anything.
This is not the point. The point is that if you develop a correct
argumentation that you are material, and that what we "see" around us
is material, then the arithmetical P. Jone(s) will also find a correct
argumentation that *they* are material, and that what they see is
material. The problem is that if you are correct in "our physical
reality" their reasoning will be correct too, and false of course. But
then your reasoning has to be false too.
The only way to prevent this consists in saying that you are not
Turing-emulable, or that you just don't know if you are in the UD or
not. At this stage.
Then with step-8, you "know", relatively to the comp act of faith,
that you are already there. If you say yes to the doctor, you can bet,
from computer science that you are already in the (N,x,+) matrix.
>
>> Your argument should be non UD accessible, and thus non Turing
>> emulable.
>
> No, it just has to be right. The fact that a simulated me
> *would8 be wrong doesn't mean the real me *is* wrong.
But if you are correct in your reasoning, the simulated you has to be
correct to. It is the same reasoning.
Or you have a special sense making you know that you are the "real"
one, but either that special sense is Turing emulable and your
doppelganger inherit them, or it is not Turing emulable, and you
better should say "no" to the doctor, because you would loose that
sense.
>
>> If you feel being primitively material, just say "no" to the doctor.
>
> Why can't I just get a guarantee that he will re-incarnate me
> materially?
He will try.
> Even if matter doesn't exist, I won't lose out.
Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no
doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot be primitive,
assuming comp. Matter is more or less the border of the ignorance of
universal machines (to be short). There is a fundamental physics which
capture the invariant for all possible universal machine observation,
and the rest is geography-history. Assuming comp the consistent-
contingent obeys laws.
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 Wed Aug 19 2009 - 01:20:36 PDT