Re: Emulation and Stuff

From: Flammarion <>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT)

On 31 Aug, 21:31, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:31, Flammarion wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 16:08, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> >> On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:46, Flammarion wrote:
> >>> On 22 Aug, 08:21, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> >>>> On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote:
> >>>>> 1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or
> >>>>> generated
> >>>>> by something else that does
> >>>>> 2. I ontologically exist
> >>>>> 3. According to you, I am generated by the UD
> >>>>> 4. Therefore the UD must ontologically exist.
> >>>>> Step 04 is really step 00 which I have worked backwards
> >>>>> to here
> >>>> 5. But the UD exists only mathematically.
> >>>> Thus, ontological existence = mathematical existence.
> >>>>> There is no usual one, since there is no one agreed ontology
> >>>>> of mathematics.
> >>>> For sets and functions, you may be right. For numbers, there is a
> >>>> general mathematical agreement.
> >>> No there isn't.
> >> What is the disagreement?
> > The age old debate about whether numbers exist
> You confuse the use of number in physics, and in cognitive science,
> and in computer science, with metaphysical discussion I do avoid. When
> I say that there is no disagreement about the numbers, I mean that
> most scientist agree on the use of the classical tautologies in
> arithmetic. Nothing more. Or show me where.

tautologies don't buy you a UD. Unicorns=unicorns doesn;t mean
there are any unicorns.

> >>>> There may be no philosophical
> >>>> argument, but this is not relevant to undersatnd the non
> >>>> philosophical
> >>>> reasoning.
> >>> Ontology is philosophy. You can't settle ontological quesitons
> >>> with mathematical proofs.
> >> Philosophy, or theology. OK. But comp is an assumption in cognitive-
> >> science/philosophy/theology.
> > No. *CTM* is. "Comp* is your own fusion of CTM with
> > Platonism
> Comp is CTM + "2+2 is equal to 4 or 2+2 is not equal to 4".

AR qua truth does nto buy you a UD either

> Wait I explain CT, you will see what I mean more easily.

> >> It is an assumption that a form of
> >> reincarnation is possible.
> >> This is not pure mathematics. UDA belongs
> >> to the intersection of cognitive and physic science. UDA is not
> >> purely
> >> mathematical.
> > It is not going anywhere without some ontological
> > assumptions either. since it has an ontological conclusion.
> I am using the hypothesis that my consciousness will be relatively
> preserved by a transformation of my brain, and Church thesis. And the
> conclusion is epistemological: comp -> physics is a branch of number
> theory, but with a gift: that physics is part of a larger thing (and
> splits into qualia and quanta). I don't make publicly ontological
> commitment. I give a theory, theorems, and a practical way to test the
> consequence of the theory.

The fact that you don't majke your ontological assumptions
explicit is just the problem.

> >>>>> You are aware. are you not, that philosophers
> >>>>> and mathematicians are still writing books and papers attacking
> >>>>> and defending Platonism and other approaches?
> >>>> Platonism is used by both philosopher and mathematician as
> >>>> something
> >>>> far more general than arithmetical realism, on which all
> >>>> mathematicians agree.
> >>> I am not concerned with argument about how many pixies exist.
> >> So a doubt about the existence of a large cardinal in set theory rise
> >> a doubt about the existence of seven?
> > No. A doubt about the ontological existence of seven leads
> > to a doubt about the rest.
> A doubt on seven, would destroy the argument. Indeed!
> I personally don't believe in ontological seven, as far as I can make
> a sense on that.

Well, if the UD isn't ontological either, I am not being simulated on

> >> I have use arithmetical realism, because I have never met any
> >> difficulty, among mathematicians, physicians and computer scientist.
> >> Nor even with philosophers, except some which just dodge the issues
> >> of
> >> showing what they miss in the argument.
> > Hmm. Well, you would say that, wouldn't you.
> I was thinking of you, and some old "friends". But at least, you make
> the dodging in public, my "friends" never did. I thank you for that.

> >> My work has been indeed rejected in Brussels, by philsophers. But it
> >> has been defended a s a PhD thesis by a jury with mathematician,
> >> computer scientist, physician (yes, not physicist, but doctor!).
> > But it is a philosophical thesis, since its conclusion is the nature
> > of existence.
> Not at all. I see the bigness of the misunderstanding here. I just use
> the scientific way to proceed in theology.

Theology is philosophy and then some

> This is what I like with the Church Turing thesis, it makes possible
> to keep the agnostic scientific attitude in very deep question, and to
> proceed by theories and verification, and this in a field that
> atheists like to relegate to religious crackpot.
> Atheists and other religious fundamentailist hates this work, but that
> is normal. My work shows atheism and some religion are very close
> compared to the abysse between atheism and agnosticism (be it on mind,
> matter, god, or whatever).
> Is that the problem?
> >>> The point remains: there *is* a debate so there is *not* a standard
> >>> ontology.
> >>>> It is believed explcitly by many physicists too,
> >>>> like David Deutsch, Roger Penrose, and those who use math in
> >>>> physics.
> >>> I never said no-on beliieves Platonism. I said some
> >>> people belive other things. Therefore it is contentious,
> >>> therefore it is needs jsutification.
> >> It is more efficacious to see if the consequence of comp, believed by
> >> many, are verified by nature.
> > It's the consequences of CTM+Platonism
> For once, that would not change the point. But it is *just* CTM, and
> to define CTM properly, you need CT, and thus you need that minimal
> form of arithmetical realism, just to accept that a machine stop or
> does not stop, in principle.

That's just bivalence, not any metaphysical realism

> That is all I need. I need consciousness for the yes doctor, and I
> show that physics resume to numbers relation, as some physicists
> already agree, but for different reasons. Here, we have something
> more. The reduction of physics to numbers goes through machine's
> epistemology, and this is nice because I get the quanta with the
> qualia, and their as complete as possible mathematics.

If the machine does not exist its "epsitemology" can't be generating
physics minds or anything else.

> >>>>>> By comp, the ontic
> >>>>>> theory of everything is shown to be any theory in which I can
> >>>>>> represent the computable function. The very weak Robinson
> >>>>>> Arithmetic
> >>>>>> is already enough.
> >>>>> I am not interested in haggling over which pixies exist.
> >>>> This may be the root of your problem.
> >>>>>> comp = CTM.
> >>>>> It clearly isn't by the defintiion you gave in
> >>>>> your SANE paper.
> >>>> All right. As I said: comp is CTM + "2 + 02 = 4".
> >>> Nope, mere truth does not buy the immaterial existence of a UD
> >> But from "2+2 = 4" and CT, you can derive the existence of UD.
> > Only the mathematical existence.
> Just what I need, to explain why machine, existing only
> mathematically, will correctly believe in the limit that what they
> called consciousness and why observable matter comes from the
> impossible marriage of addition and multiplication.

Only existig things believe. If mathematical existence=non-existence,
nothing follows about my reality.

> >>>>> Classical logic is just a formal rule.
> >>>> It depends on the realm in which you apply classical logic. In
> >>>> computer science people admit that a running program will either
> >>>> halt,
> >>>> or not halt, even in case we don't know. This is a non formal use
> >>>> of
> >>>> classical logic.
> >>> It still does not demonstrate the immaterial existence of computers
> >>> no-one has built.
> >> No one has ever build the prime numbers.
> > No. They were not built. they did not spontaneously spring
> > into being, they do not exist at all.
> To one comment to another one, you contradict yourself.
> Above you agree that the UD, and the prime numbers I presume, exists
> in the mathematical sense, and now you say that prime numbers does not
> exists at all.

I have consistently maintained that mathematical "existence"
is nothign ontologically, any more than Sherlock Holmes'
"existence" is late vitorian London. Is it so hard to grasp
that a word can have different meaning in different contexts?

> Do or do not the UD and prime numbers exists in the mathematical sense?

Sure. But that is fictive. Since real people do not srping from the
of books. I am not springing from a merely mathematically existing UD.

> >>>>> Bivalence is not Platonism
> >>>> Exactly. This is one more reason to distinguish carefully
> >>>> "arithmetical realism" (bivalence in the realm of numbers), and
> >>>> Platonism (something huge in philosophy and theology).
> >>> Even more reason to distinguish between AR qua truth and AR qua
> >>> existence.
> >> Yes, and I use only AR qua truth.
> > Then you cannot come to any valid conclusion about my existence.
> Yes I can, once you say yes to the doctor. It is the whole point of UDA
> +MGA.

The UDA can have no point unless the UD really exists.

> And you exists, indeed, but not materially. You are not made from
> *substantial* particles nor waves, particles are made of infinities of
> numbers relations, classified by group theory and white rabbits
> "renormalization", in the CTM at least.

> >> I may ask you what are your evidence for a primary matter, or for
> >> your
> >> notion of AR qua physical existence.
> > You dismiss matterial existence assuming Platonic existence.
> No, I assume material existence to show it epistemologically
> contradictory by a reductio ad absurdo.

Without Platonic existence. there is no UD, and nothing
follows from the UDA

> > I dismiss Platonic existene assuming material existence.
> I don't know what you mean by platonic existence. You certainly don't
> dismiss the idea that classical logic can be used on arithmetical
> propositions, are you?

No. I mean immaterial existence. Somehting exists and it it is't
material (as you say) then it is immaterial. It is up to you to
the explanation of immaterial existence, since I don;t beleive in it.

> > I may not have a proof, but neither do you.
> I propose a proof, and it looks like you don't have read it, because
> you stop at step 0, by using a critics which is irrelevant up to step
> 7, and defeated by step 8. If you read it, tell me where you have the
> feeling that I am wrong.

You can'ty pull out your UD at step 07 withiout justifiying Platonism
at step 0.

> From what I understand, only step 08 should be addressed by you. It is
> the place where *primitive matter* is made non sensical in machine 's
> epistemology.

The machine does nto exist, so it has no beliefs.

>Physicalism is incompatible with CTM, that is the
> result. If it is wrong, let me known where the error has been made. I
> am far to pretend no error could be found, but up to now, scientist
> don't find it, and some philosophers dodge the issue. (Thanks to David
> for having taught me the word "dodge" :)
> Bruno
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Sep 01 2009 - 10:08:27 PDT

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