[sadhu-sanga] Continued thread on foundations of mathematics

Bruno, 

First, thanks for the mention of 'the mathematics of self-reference' which led me to http://www.science4all.org/article/self-reference/   and https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2016/02/10/faqs-about-self-reference/ and some introductory logic material.

From within my NSD perspective, though, I found myself noticing that logic is some kind of an instance of nested structured~duality  where the structure is perhaps ~linear or ~list-like (something equals something else...) and the duality is true-false.   Then, when reading about contradictions (inconsistency; both true and false) my hunch is contradictions mark branches to another (NSD) nesting level. I suppose that is a hunch.

I also notice that situations like "This sentence is false" are places where the user doubles down on the basic (true-false) duality of the NSD system in use and that, apparently, creates anomalies. Again, I would say this would be because ~reality is NSD whereas the user is not cognizant of that fundamental fact and/or ignores or denies the fundamental nested structured~duality.  Then, his or her error makes itself known in strange but noticeable ways.

I did notice, though, that when I say ""instance of nested structured~duality"  I guess I am or could be referring  a "set".  Also, when I observe your  or logic's successor notation for the numbers:  0,s(0),s(s(0)),s(s(s(0)))... each of  those certainly are spitting images of an NSD, so I'd say sets of numbers are also sets of NSD's.  Numbers are NSD's.

Vaguely, having previously read a tiny bit on Von Neumann's axiom of foundation using an ordered succession of steps to exclude possibility of a set belonging to itself,  and seeing his term: "method of inner models",  I suspect there  may be some cross connections or bleedthrough ~there (too).  He was "structuring structure", adding an additional level of order -- adding or acknowledging or relying upon the underlying nested structure.

Secondly,  FWIW,  your comment way, way below about the folks in Heaven, not us aerobic creatures here on Earth, was helpful  in me trying to grasp your digital mechanism substitution/arithmetic storyline.   I may be more or a shimmering energy field/pattern advocate than a numbers fan, but the distinction and mention is helpful. 

No doubt I will still persist in my sp^3 hybridized patterns, though, since I think the visualization of the "one" specific and existant, ubiquitous  pattern of structural coding is also helpful to consider.

Some comments below..

[Which Mechanism? How many are there? Terseness and delivering physical intuition as measures of effectiveness.]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 8:51:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Jan 2018, at 23:16, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bruno,

There is quite a bit of uncertainty re what happens when we die, huh?

Indeed. But some statements can be deduce from some assumptions, so we can reason (if we have the taste for such inquiry).

And about spiritual matters and the undecidability wrt items of faith. I guess or have read that that is why they are issues and items of faith -- because there is no rationalizing or proof or justifications. 

A proof is always given in the frame of a theory/axioms/hypothesis/finite-codes, etc.

Of course, by experience, we add plausibilities to some theories, but in the fundamental inquiries, unfortunately we can met here or there the use of violence (from the non valid use of the shrugging to the non valid use of bombs, …).

[rf] Why not food and shelter for all?  I must be a hopeless/hopeful romantic.   I still think there is plenty of room for many of our difficulties  and challenges to just be rooted in the flaws in our initial scientific paradigm. Remediate the flaws and social, economic, environmental systems riding on the scientific paradigm will naturally improve.  

It's part of the exquisite mystery. Such are matters of faith. 

OK.

A brief moment of NDE in1977 once partly convinced me of the peace and resonance of it~hopefully, when the time comes. But there is still no proof and sometimes anxiety grows. Still  faith remains the size of  a mustard seed.  

With Mechanism, like with the Salvia divinorum, some people understand for the first time in their life that the idea that the 3p death entails the 1p death is based on invalid argument, and suddenly, they get far more anxious. I understood that for many people, the”nothing after death” is really a form of wishful thinking. 

It is normal anxiety grows. Now, at some level, the uncertainty is part of life, and with mechanism there is a priori an inflation even of type of afterlife, and we have some control. I fear more the human fear of truth than truth, and in that sense I have faith, I trust the (unknown and never publicly communicable truth).

A confession I can make is I may be or am or have been said to be woefully lacking in deducing  and inferring.

That will not help you for communication. But my point was not a critic of your idea, but only that you could not deduce that they are in opposition to Mechanism, once we use the “modern” notion of Turing (universal) machines. If you are aware that you have problem with deduction, you might try just to be more cautious in negative statement. 

[rf]  Perhaps to clarify, I don't think I oppose mechanism/organism since I am scribbling up images of analog math in attempt to illuminate interactive structural coding patterns visualizable in stacks of ordered water and similar carbon-based widgets.  I believe my concern or skepticism is more on the digital mechanism _substitution_ proposal.   Perhaps I can come around to comprehend or understand Turing machines and the storyline that you advocate, but, pragmatically, once I hear about an infinity of ~calculations, or consider years or decades to acquire the requisite mathematical incantations,  the pathway violates    a simplicity rule -- that I have, for me -- and I seek a more visible or more tactile path.   Different blind men; same elephant.

If or when there is a test of your substitution storyline, perhaps then I can grasp it.

So if some of your statements and ambiguous terminology presenting proving (or is it disproving) Mechanism/Materialism IF your consciousness could survive "digital mechanism" substitution.... relies on some unstated deduction or inference,

It is my working *hypothesis*. We never try to deduce an hypothesis. We deduce proposition from an hypothesis.

[rf] How do you come up with a hypothesis, then, inference? Successive approximations? Lucky guesses? 

chances are that is part of why  I am missing the point of your expression.  It's my lack. If you can be more clear about the high points and problem you aim  to solve, besides a "Matrix" sequel screenplay,

My work has been published before Matrix. Actually, the Novel of Daniel B. Galouye (SIMULACRON 3) use Mechanism more validly. I recommend it. 

Mechanism is the hypothesis that the brain/body is a natural machine. It means basically that there is no magic, and that the relation between the relevant constituents are logical and locally causal (in a large sense of local, valid even with quantum “non-locality”). What is typical with machine is that their identity is invariant for the change of the constituents. We can argue that life has already bet on Mechanism, as we change our constitution all the time, by eating and defecating, by breathing also.

[rf] Our eating, respiring and defecating  keep an energy flow going.  The invariant or slow-changing  parts are our structurally coded patterns.    

 

I don’t defend that hypothesis, but show that it forces us to derive the physical laws from “machine’s theology”, which is itself derivable from pure arithmetic (thanks to Gödel’s arithmetization of meta-mathematics). Of course, this last point asks for more work. If interested I suggest you read the argument in 8 steps presented in the sane04 paper. We can discuss each step at a time online.

[rf] I'd say that back in the uncorrupted, not misunderstood garden, we discover  and describe "the physical laws" and commit them to memory and pass them to offspring because doing so helps with energy collection and conservation.  Theology is a bit of a separate matter.

I would appreciate it.  Still, it's my lack and we DO reason differently.

Logicians are used to make precise the available laws of reasoning. That includes the use of the connective “and”, “or”, “implies”, “not”, etc. I use and reason in classical logic, but most of what I say can be shown using intuitionistic logic (where the (A or not A) rules is rejected).

I avoid metaphor and analogy. 

[rf] Whereas I think analog math or modeling is the cat's meow.  Go figure.  I appreciate your perseverance and patience in trying to summarize your approach so I might catch a glimpse of it.

Some other points below...

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Ralph,

On 10 Jan 2018, at 09:14, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

First, where you write, """My mechanism is, up to a nuance, the oldest rationalist conception of reality.""",  in ~my ~logic  can I revise or re-format that to: 

Reality is mechanism.    (bm)

Not at all. I have proved that if my consciousness can survive a digital brain or body transplant, then whatever Reality is, it is NOT a mechanism.

You seem to have not yet well understood that if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).

[rf] I sort of don't see what the math has to do with it.  Or,  if I opt for me doing some type of intuitive-ish logic, or in my case like a deeply nested ~pattern-biochemical, fields within fields energy-structure, carbon-water-based structural coding  balancing act, whereas you are really masterful at the more standard rationalistic mathematical logic,  then we do certainly ~reason differently, if I can even call what ~my structural coding is as  "reasoning".  And I can probably see your point that you think your approach is superior along the criteria that you and your group appreciate.  

Computation and computability has been discovered in mathematics. A (general purpose) computer is a physical implementation (incarnation) of a universal Turing machine, which was at the start a concept in pure mathematics (and since then we know it is even an arithmetical object that we can define with only the arithmetical notion of 0, +1, + and *. That is not completely obvious. It is done explicitly in Martin Davis Dover book “Computability and Unsolvabiliy”. 

But, back to my rather autistic/engineer-like   aim though, a goal I have been seeking is to like, for instance, not to find ALL  or the BEST, say, ~equations of quantum gravity, or a working trial theory of consciousness, but to scribble out an initial, approximate instance that delivers enough physical intuition to spark the new awareness.

That can be interesting. I am not criticising this. Just that it is not opposed to Mechanism. 

[rf] I suppose I agree --not opposed to mechanism--, but the way I ~feel about it is that the mechanism on my path is more like enzymatic or  catalytic rather than one reading and punching card decks, or a water wheel driving operation of a multi-story building full of woolen blanket looms.   I shift to a different instance of nested structured~duality and the artifact provides physical intuition, ~directly, by-passing the usual dip down into the secondary abstract math.   

Seems to be a different class of mechanism.

This has led me into the analog math symbols and expressions to get the synchrony and the *feel*, and to beginning with the tetrahedral structure (rather than the xyz-cube, used, say, in Hamiltonians and elsewhere), because that pattern is (1) a different basis than the cube, and (2) rather ubiquitous within relevant atomic-molecular levels of our ontology.  

If you have some link which explains what can be done and not done in their respective formalism. Eventually, with mechanism, physics (and the whole theology) will not depend on the choice for the starting universal theory.

[rf] Formalism? What formalism?   The formalism is reality is nested structured~duality -- and then choose tetrahedron for structure and attraction-repulsion for duality.   Then the  loom spits out physical intuition.

Your recipe may work for your instance of nested structured~duality. But perhaps before you try to impose your rules beyond their domain you likely should polish and shorten your list of operations so that  yours delivers similar physical intuition    with an equally terse instruction set. 

So, yes, I am doing a rather crude approximation of a paradigm shift as I seek a paradigm shift, and, I am encouraged by the information compression and physical intuition delivered by the initial approximation -- just by picking a different specific structure and  ~duality.

In our on-going discussion here,  perhaps because I point at our organic chemistry -- carbon-water-based structural coding, and "magnetic tetrahedra" as quick and dirty analog math symbols of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds and I describe/visualize having a "free" internal representation of surroundings structurally coding  in a ~6^n manner  in the10^20 per second water molecules forming within our aerobic respiration reaction sites (within neurons), that those references put me in the category of "materialist", or advocating that ~we are "machines" or "cwb machines". Perhaps that is an accurate categorization although, considering reality as nested structured~duality,  as nested fields within nested fields, I often think I am more focused on patterns than on materials.  Referencing atoms' names refer to patterns and they are a bit like symbols, like the number-words.  I suspect though that getting an internal representation in the cwb structural coding, though, which is like developing a structure-related memory  back at the start of aerobic respiration and prior to development of neural networks is less panpsychist or cosmic consciousness-like than many might prefer.  Yes, it's like a small, local, provincial trial theory maybe only relevant for types of solar systems like ours whose suns make carbon, etc.

Anyway,   the notion of machine, and I think mechanism, as either favorable, or proveable or decidable, etc.,

The point will be that the theory of machine is NOT decidable, and is actually highly undecidable. You need to integrate the Turing-Gödel’s amazing discovery, which is, to be short, that we know nothing about machines.

[rf]  Perhaps you are right. However, you are the one focusing in on machines and considering "mind-body" as a machine.   My quibble is not with machines but with what scientific paradigms develop from, or exploring  different instances of nested structured~duality -- while continuing to use our current carbon-water-based structural coding units.   

MAY be a paradigm-bound quibble relating to the storyline one wants to present -- that is, one's favorite  instance of --Yes, you guessed it!-- nested structured~duality.    

Bruno, I am still not clear on if you use Turing universal machines to prove or disprove mechanism,

I use it to define “Digital Mechanism”, to show that it is incompatible with physicalism/materialism, and then to derive a way to test it. Thanks to QM, evidences are given in favour of Mechanism (and thus in de-favor of (weak) materialism. We just need to come back to Plato. The ultimate reality is NOT what we see, measure, quantify, but something behind all this.

[rf]  And currently, we are structurally coding representations of all of our experiences in water-based and carbon-water-based patterns. It's happening, and we know it, but we can't see, measure or quantify all of it. And if we try to measure it it will alter it. What's the ultimate reality? What's behind all this?   Life and living. Love, togetherness, connection.  Attraction and attraction with one-half spin. 

but when I was watching videos on UTM's, it looks to me like they are also a mechanism (read, write, move, etc.). Is that a problem or a feature in your proofs?

A feature.

[rf] Seems to me, therefore that  your model works on unacknowledged nested structure. 

Where you write: """ ...if we are machine (to be short) then to predict *any* physical event we have to make an infinite sum on infinitely many computations, and there are no reason to expect a mechanism emerges from such an infinite sum (and the math confirms: it cannot be a mechanism).""",   I get the impression you are forgetting your pre-natal and subsequent developments where prior to you making any predictions, you had some experiences that, let's say, structurally coded into some types of memories.  So, when we get around to "predicting", we're already initialized 

Yes, the prediction are always relative to the state we are in. We have the same thing in (quantum) physics. 

-- conditioned or have a hunch or reduced set of possibilities to flounder about. So, those  "infinitely many computations" are likely a feature of your abstract math model.

OK, but the "abstract math model” is the one we learn at the primary school, literally. If you have no problem with 2+2=4, the rest follow from this and similar. You might intuit that the digital character of the Turing machine/computer is what is responsible in making computation equivalent with some number relation.

[rf] You have an ability that I do not have and it sounds to me like you have adopted or imagine symbols having special powers or material attributes. When cast as numbers, +, * and a read-write-move head viewing a non-material tape, sometimes imbued, seemingly magically with the dreaming consciousness state, I don't follow the breadcrumbs.  

In the "cwb organism" (which is likely a better name than cwb machine)    the initial structural coding for an experience is ~automatic. It just happens.  The experience just WRITES the ~6^n pattern. (Or, I suppose you can consider the WRITE at some other level or at multiple levels.) Anyway, the reference is ~given.   The system "writes" it.

As far as I can make sense of this, I do not see why this would not be amenable to number relation. 

[rf]  I guess I would point toward the closely coupled energy collection/conservation. Like love and marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage.  So, if you are talking about ~simulating structural coding representations with number-word codes and relations, then you'd also need to simulate the energy collection/conservation. But a simulation is not equal to the ~real (cwb) thing wherein ALL of the parts and pieces have multiple synergistic connections and supportive roles.   

whereas I advocate:

Reality is nested structured~duality.   (rf)    ?

Which is expected when we assume Mechanism.

[rf] Is this a retro-prediction on your part? 

Yes. Actually I derived the semantics (many-worlds) and a part of the quantum formalism from arithmetic and mechanism (and biology at that time) before I knew anything about quantum mechanics. What the physicists qualify as weird becomes obvious. What seems normal, like the use of an Hamiltonian becomes the most difficult part to derive, and some aspect of the Hamiltonian might be “geographical” and not “physical”, in which case the physical reality would be bigger than what is usually thought.

[rf] Your "geographical" hunch may be another "denied/ignored nested structure" signal. 

Also, where you write, """We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. """,  I'm still chaotically unclear about your approach and theory/terminology, and like a skittish animal, take most things as threats. So if you see areas of potential agreement, that would be both good and, in my experience, rare -- unexpected -- unfamiliar, maybe unrecognizable, to me.  

You need only to study a bit more logic, to see that some of your conclusion makes sense with mechanism, and are even desirable in the sense that we might (if you are correct) derive the importance of the water molecules in life and consciousness.

[rf] I get the impression that I am suggesting structure is fundamental, or adding structure with energy as fundamentals. 

But what is energy? And where does it comes from? And how that can be associated with consciousness? That are the question which interests me.

[rf] Energy is the stuff that flows through and powers ecological niches and networks. Locally, ours  comes from solar fusion via photosynthesis into carbohydrates, fats and proteins that we consume and aerobically respire.  I've already described how it  associates with ~consciousness. 

That *feels* to me like it is ~below or in support of "mechanism" and "organism" (and all the other instances of NSD). Even in your UTM, you have left-right structure. 

Yes, but arithmetic is typically left-right (cf 0, s(0), s(s(0)), …). But that is unimportant. The integers are also Turing universal (with + and *).

[rf] Are you really saying ordering and pre-sorting is irrelevant, inconsequential and unimportant and can be ignored? It seems to be an implicit portion of your instance of nested structured~duality.  As an advocate of NSD  I may need to  register a formal complaint.

The basic machinery is not important, as far as it is Turing universal. I could also use rational numbers. But I cannot use the real numbers, because they are (at the first order logical level) too poor to be Turing Universal. Real numbers + trigonometrical functions is again Turing universal, but to derive physics, I prefer to not assume trigonometrical functions.

[rf] Can the  real numbers be in random and/or inverse orderings?

I encounter my wall of fog essentially as soon as when trying to ~visualize ~why one would represent counting numbers as chains of calls to an incrementor function -- successors. I am still wishing for a picture or diagram or clear example that illuminates the advantage of such an initial set of associations on the front-end of math/symbolic logic.   It looks or feels like obfuscation to me.   Again, pardon my persistent ignorance.  

There are many equivalent theories. You can propose another theory, if it is Turing-complete (Turing universal) it will be enough, and nothing can be added. 

I likely misunderstood some of your axiom questions, but I ~think I may have a basic problem with assuming 0 (zero).

Is your problem about “assuming” or about “zero”?

[rf] When I ponder on unity and eternal then my problem is with "zero".    Like I said, for the math exercise, okay, assuming zero as the balance point or for accounting makes sense or has utility. As for logic, no doubt it's meaningful. I guess I would question the cross-system applicability to all aspects of ~our kind.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming that Mechanism is true. Just that it is premature with any current theory to assume it false. The digital machines does have a theory of consciousness and a full non trivial theology, which includes physics (and so is testable).

Because of some of my meditations on "eternal"  I have also grown skeptical about "in the beginning", or "empty space". So, yes, my problem is with "zero”. 

You need only to agree with statements involving zero, like to introspect yourself and agree (or not) that 4 + 0 = 4, 0 * 4 = 0, etc.

Does that block me from learning logic?

Only if you were genuinely believing statements like 4 + 0 = 5, and things of that kind.

My theory is not really mine. It is the theory already given by the universal machines, in arithmetic. 

That is, in math, yes, I get it,  If I have 3 apples and I eat them, then I have zero apples. 

OK. Good. That is the idea. 

However,  I had a (ralph) insight once that for fields, they really don't have or reach or recover from a value of zero, thus zero field strength (zero) doesn't ~exist.   "If anything" the ~field just disappears, dissipates, vanishes.   So I do sort of get that in the externalized abstract math and logic, zero exists and probabaly ALL that you write and theorize is completely valid in the rules of abstract math, but (according to me) it doesn't quite match up with the problems and challenges that we are actually nested within.  

You assume fields. Normally they need much more mathematical assumptions to be described. With mechanism, the fields, the 

Similarly, I think of vibrations or oscillations always between two or more states.   

Me too. That should not be a problem, unless you reify the states into “material” or “divine” state, which would blur the possible simpler explanation where the “matter illusion” and/or the “divine truth” would come from.

[rf] Do you see math and logic as closer to the "divine truth"?   Just asking.

Only the true but non provable part of it. Yes, I use Plato’s God, which is just Truth. That makes sense when we understand that even when we limit ourself to Arithmetical Truth, we are confronted with something which transcend us. You need to know that only a tiny part of truth is computable. The universal machine behaviour is already necessarily not entirely computable. Such machine might not stop for communicable/rational reason.

More below….

OK.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hello Ralph,

On 5 Jan 2018, at 06:10, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruno, 

I appreciate your patience and optimism,  but I am aware of the empty gulf on my part when it comes to mathematics, logic structures, axioms and proofs.  The interesting part of the conversation, if there is any,  may be pretty short.  I Googled and skimmed some definitions about logic and symbolic and mathematical logic... I think it has something to do with "picking a structure", so, from that ~I jump to NSD as like a root class of all logics, including irrational and dysfunctional/non-functional  ones (with which I have multi-year or perhaps lifetime experiences).  I sometimes appreciate/acknowledge broken or whacked out logics since, as other instances of NSD,   they apparently also replicate in natural ways. Similarly, I am skeptical of ~quantum mechanical based consciousness/logic models with the thought that IF those were applicable and operational then how come we are all not  instantly A LOT ~smarter, insightful,  and well-reasoned than we all actually are?    The proof seems to be in the pudding.  Our actual ~logic structures are just not  QM level perfect. As I think I said before,  I observe that our core energetic ~meaning comes from the ~respiration reaction, and all the abstracted wordful logic ~reasoning comes in secondary structural coding in the downstream hydrogen-bonding/protein-folding.  

What's that -- heathen- or barbarian-level logic?

We might not reason at the same level. We have theories, and you seemed to think that “my” theory (a digital version of the antic Mechanism, already in Milinda and then Descartes) might oppose your theory, where on the contrary, if your approach is correct it would be handy for me to pursue in my theory. 

When you correct the misuse of Gödel by Penrose or Lucas, the argument reverses itself, and shows that Gödel’s theorem actually protects the machines from the reductionist conception we did have since. 

Anyway,  more below....

OK

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

Thank you for the clarification. We might disagree enough to have an interesting conversation :)

On 02 Jan 2018, at 06:36, Ralph Frost wrote:

Bruno, 

Thanks for your reply and clarifications. I hear the words coming out of your mouth. However, while  I, too, think there are other different scientific paradigms accounting for the so-called ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts, better than is done in the dominant ~physical scientific paradigm, I  do not or cannot understand the instance of nested structured~duality that you view and put together or as you express it so far.

I am aware it is not that easy. You have to accompany me on the shoulders of giants (Gödel, Turing, Solovay, ...).

Yet, the basic idea are rather simple. 

We will see.

Some comments below.

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Dear Ralph,

I think that you assume a physical reality “out there”, but at the start I am neutral. Then I explain my working hypothesis, and shows that such an existence can be tested, and I show that the test already done makes more plausible that the physical universe “is in our head”. 

[rf] First, I don't think you were 'neutral' when studying ameobas, but you changed after having one or more insights and after experiencing and mastering the abstract math and mathematical logic lingo. 

Hmm... Not really. I don't like too much mention my personal feelings, but I don't remind having ever believe in primary matter. To me physics was the art of measuring numbers, inferring relation between numbers, and then verifying them, but my initial conception of reality was a dream more persistent than other dreams.

It took me time to understand that people "really believe" in what I tended to consider as a dream. The metaphysical problem was:  where that dream comes from? who is the dreamer? is there a possibility of awaken? what could justify the persistence and the long stories?, why does it hurts? etc. 

[rf] I'd like to hear more of the more persistent dream...  Also, I must be approaching this with a two-year civil engineering technician's perspective - one example ~proves the principle.       I am not advocating "primary matter", either, but chemistry and biochemistry, to me, seem pretty relevant.

OK. I guess you are aware that the current paradigm is that you can reduce molecular biology and biochemistry to chemistry, and chemistry to the quantum electrodynamic itself supposed to be unifiable with all other forces (more less done except for gravitation), and most current philosophers and scientists believe/assume a fundamental physical reality (which is an assumption in metaphysics/theology, which is my domain of interest and I use the scientific method in there). 

I tend to agree that human biology is reducible, at some level of description, to quantum physics, and my point is twofold: it is that IF we assume computationalism, then the “reduction” continue, and quantum physics get reduced to the bio or psycho or Theo - logy of the Turing universal machine.

If what I understand from your idea is correct, the life of the average universal numbers would look closely to the human biochemical life.

[rf] I think the way to put it would be that something would be exceedingly flawed with your theory/approach if your modeling did not readily ~recovery  lots of sp^3 hybridized, tetrahedral, ~magnetic-tetrahedral-like ordered water, "carbon-water-based"  patterns. 

OK. I wish you are correct on this. But that is testable, in between the theories (if you can make it precise enough), and with Nature (the empirically observable).

As well,  I am saying that ~structure is fundamental, particularly  tetrahedral structure,   I don't know it that "computes" or turns up as a fundamental feature in the dominant physics model where QED  mates with the other forces.    I state it based on observation and a hunch -- it's how we are able to bobble along in the local variable mass density solar fusion flux field and survive.     I don't know if structure is fundamental in the dominant scientific paradigm. Is it?

Structure? Mathematicians would say that structures are everywhere. The interesting things are in the relation between the structures. Especially the so-called morphism, or homomorphism.

Now, this can lead to an infinite labyrinth, and we can lost ourself. So I prefer to work top down, and start more or less from the mind-body problem, using the computationalist hypothesis as a working tool.

[rf] I am wondering if  your computationalist tool box is initialized and predominantly xyz-cubic?

Digital machine theory is not dimensional, or 0-dimensional. xyz-cubic belongs to the dream of machine incarnated in arithmetical (not geometrical) relations. That does not mean that xyz-cubic, or something else, will not play some important role for *human consciousness* and its long and deep computations. But that must be derived somehow.

[rf] When you say, "xyz-cubic belongs to the dream of machine incarnated in arithmetical (not geometrical) relations", are you saying that arithmetic ~owns the xyz orthogonal axes but is incapable of doing ratios of triangles features?  

Also, re: "dream of machine...", is this you  projecting a human quality on the machine/math, sort of like anthropomorphizing?  

   If you notice, I start with the query on the common denominator of ~mental and ~physical and, due to the empirical evidence, switch to tetrahedral structure due to the pattern recognition hit. 

The dominant scientific paradigm is still unaware that metaphysics and theology can be approached, at east according to *some* hypotheses, with the scientific method/attitude (which is modesty, no claim of truth, no ontological commitment, clear refutable theories (it is work demanding).

[rf] My approach  is less sophisticated. After pounding the cubic horse for ~400 years, why not explore  a different structural basis and see what relationships turn up?

No problem, as long as you do not conclude that a man with a digital brain is less human. My point was only that what you say is not proven to be incompatible with mechanism. 

[rf] I haven't encountered a person with a digital brain. Have you? 

The periodic chart is a good approximation, too. Of course, that is also my Peter Principle talking for me,  since I, after growing up with families of Holsteins and watching sunlight grow grass which cows then turned into milk (and loads of manure spread back on fields to grow more grass), after learning surveying, I was later somewhat able to learn about chemistry and biochemistry (sanitary/environmental engineering). Not so much acquiring abstract math and physics, and I am pretty sure I had NO class in logic or philosophy.  The first class in computing in 1971 for civil engineers at U Maine  taught both analog and digital since there was then some (small) question which would win out. Then it was on to punching card decks in FORTRAN and once applying Simplex Method linear algebra optimization  on a very simple resource allocation problem. Then on to lab work characterizing and precipitating wastes and monitoring mostly aerobic (and a few anaerobic) wastewater treatment processes.  ..Periodically reading or re-reading some of R.Buckminster Fuller's books.  My impression is not so much on the "primary matter" but, on the mostly tetrahedral sp^3 hybridized (via magnetic tetrahedron analog math) pattern.

OK. 

Logician asks to put all cards on the table, including at some point our laws of thought, like saying if we reason in classical logic or in intuitionist logic, and things get easily confused as we reason on reasoning, or on machine reasoning about on their own reasoning, and searching for meaning, etc. 

I am aware that logic is the hardest branch of mathematics, and applied logic even more. 

But logicians have discovered a bomb last century, a creative bomb, the universal Turing machine, well before its physical implementation, if we except Babbage machine, which was in principle Turing universal, and maybe Babbage get a glimpse of that.

Not all mathematicians like the Universal Machine, when they are not ignoring it. Perhaps because it brought some unavoidable mess in Plato Heaven.

[rf]  The best I can think of an approximation of a universal machine is my Nexus 5x serving as a phone and a camera and file folder (etc.,)

It looks many trucks, hoists and cranes to install at IBM their first 5 MegaBytes hard drive, and now, you can put million of these MG in your pockets. All applications are universal programmed Chips, so yes, the computers are physical implementations of Universal Machine, provably so if you accept the theses (proved equivalent) by Church, Kleene, Post, Turing, etc.

But then, after that,  in our own "carbon-water-based" instance of nested structured~duality   I am aware our own systems will develop new (genetic and epigenetic) tapes adding new mixes of enzymatic systems handy for energy collection/conservation and also, in my storyline, creating new structurally coded expressions that have influence on replications. So  our ~carbon-water-based (cwb) ~machine  modifies its own tapes and structures and actions. 

That is what the universal machine/number/word likes to do the most: to transform themselves, with respect to other probable universal number. 

The nesting can be related with dreams inside dreams, but the dreams obeys the law of numbers, and limit of numbers. From inside, the nesting is truly infinite.

  But in contrast to a math duplicator,  the cwb   can't just materialize an imaginary  oxygen molecule out of the idealied benevolent number reservoir, but in the actual internal analog structural coding we are running,  we have to scavenge for an actual extra molecules so we can carry out the ~reaction(s) to completetion so that we get the water molecules involved in the internal structural coding.  

Only because you take for granted, perhaps, the idea that the fundamental reality is physical. 

I do not.

[rf] Is it true the remainder of your statement here is: "I consider the fundamental  reality is mathematical.”? 

Even arithmetical. Analysis and physics are convenient fictions by numbers trying to understand themselves (in arithmetic). But this is not a reductionism, because it is proven that from inside arithmetic, things *must* look far bigger and never completed. 

The physical is fundamental, but it is only the Clothes of God. The physical is, or should, only be a tool used by God to say “hello” to Itsef.

It is not the fundamentally “real” thing, which has admittedly slightly more “trivial”: the arithmetical reaiity, and, at some point, even only the semi-computable arithmetical reality.

But the key to understand is that such a correspondence should itself never been taken for granted, and digital mechanism is a type of religion: it acts some faith. At some point any theology takes the risk of blasphemy, directly or when misunderstood. Here, the mathematics of self-reference can be helpful.

[rf]  Again, try to notice that what I am saying is reality is nested structured~duality.

OK. But I am a simple minded modest logician. “Nested structured-duality” is nice, but that assumes a lot of thing which needs to be made precise if we want to study the compatibility of the idea with this or that metaphysics. 

[rf] It seems to me you can get some insight by considering the nested structured~duality  of logic:  structure is linear/list-like; duality is true-false. 

This nested structured~duality  is the common denominator, the fundamental tenet supporting  ~physical and ~mental aspects and artifacts.   You seem to want to use number-words; I lean toward using atom-molecular-pattern words. Both say, "Hi, God. How are you?". Don't they?

I want to explain the complex things from the simpler one. I do not assume a physical reality. That would be like given the answer before doing the reasoning. My interest is in theology/metaphysics.

[rf]  Plus, you don't like analog math.      So, you ~assume an arithmetic reality: reality is arithmetical (where you order your numbers left to right), whereas, I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality.

I think we are getting closer.

~My storyline just dips down into re-engineering the scientific paradigm to align a bit better with observed natural pattern -- switching from cube to tetrahedral basis; initializing with a different duality; adding nested structure as fundamental.   

What changes are you proposing?   

No changes at all. I criticised only your deduction that your theory would be incompatible with digital mechanism. Then, if your idea is correct, it should be derived from mechanism, some day. And it could accelerate the derivation of carbon based organism in arithmetic.

[rf] I hear you, but I do think you are proposing some type of conceptual change or re-arrangement of tenets. Or is it a change of faith? 

When ~you are writing down your pages of logic statements, when you need another   entity, you just have your duplicator create one pulling it out of the magic hat. I mean, even in a computer the program has to allocate another  byte or two of memory.   But not so in your externalized logic writing/thinking.

I doubt less 2 * 3 = 6 than the idea that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, or that F=GmM/r^2. I confess. 

[rf] I remember reading and copying and practicing the multiplication tables, in 3rd and 4th grade, and committing those patterns to memory, too. I'd agree, I doubt them less, as so far, remember them more than the other patterns.

Ah! Good. So there is really no problem for the understanding. You need only to do some work, or, just be cautious not deriving negative view in metaphysics to quickly.

With respect to the arithmetical reality, a “physical" memory is only needed to remain in the physical reality, that is the normal (Gaussian) computational histories.

[rf] Do you ever still count on your fingers? 

That’s where the terms “digits” and “digital” come from (latin; digits = finger). But I am a mathematician: I never count. I only dream about that :)

[rf] The counting on fingers, to me, involves sequences of correlated or connected protein-foldings, Extending digits while speaking the number-name and perhap[s recalling a visual image. 

'Near death', the question becomes more difficult, as there are infinities of histories, and a priori you survive on the closer consistent one. Arithmetic entails there is something like “near death experiences”, and they are evidences for some arithmetical Bardo Thodol. There are complex nesting there too. (Assuming Mechanism).

[rf] My brief experience, FWIW, which could also have been a passing fancy, is more so like a growing, peaceful  resonance, like tending toward a strong attractor. Sure, the anxieties seem to prompt a bunch of recalculations, but surrendering, the path is already formed. One only need to follow.  Surrendering is sometimes difficult.

I don't know if that makes a cbw Turine-like or  universal, or computational, but that ~stoichiometric atomic or molecular requirement is a central distinction between the two types of devices -- as best I can tell.

It raises the interesting subject of the possible physical implementation of universal relations in 3D space, with varieties of constraints.

[rf] Where or how do you come up with this notion of 3D space? 

I am a long way to explain that. I have only some technical speculation, based on the fact that the physics is given by a logic which allows a formal knot theory to develop, and 4D space-time (actually 24D-space-time) arise from some relation which should exist in that logic, but the proofs use many conjecture. Yet, there is no choice: if mechanism is correct, the 3D space must be explained from number self-reference, even if the task asks for billions years of work? As you can guess, the goal is not practical, only theological or metaphysical. 

[rf] Or is the notion just originated once and then pased down in the oral/written tradition?

 

Do you mean distance in three orthogonal directions? What you reach out at when you extend your arms and spin around?   Do you believe in empty space as a fundamental? 

It is fundamental, but not primitive. Space belongs to the number mind (assuming Mechanism).

[rf] Do you mean what you consider the number mind assumes ~empty space ~first prior to populating and arranging numbers?

In the 6^n ordered water structural coding that I am pointing at the sybmols are provided "for free" as a sidebar of the respiration/energy reaction, but they don't get "written" as one of the ~six symbols by surrounding vibrations except as the molecule forms and perhaps enters into a microtubular channel. Then the next, and the next.   

No problem. Unless you use that material prematurely against the idea of mechanism and its immaterial consequences.

[rf] Why is that such a concern or consideration? 

Note that classical gravitation theory is Turing universal with three bodies? Quantum field theory is Turing universal with the vacuum, i.e. with 0 bodies (!).

The numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are really the most concrete things I can imagine. I am more sure that 2 is even than that I am sitting on a chair, which is a relation which involves crazily complex number relation, if we want bet on something more than a dream content (which I do).

[rf] So, for  you are these numbers increments?  Or do you start with, say, one increment and then attach multiple of unit increments end-for-end, in a line making a length of distance having the quantitative number values? And even numbers are not just complete rotations rather than just one one-half spins?  

Or do you start with the expanding rectangular array structure and then populate the openings with number-values on top of other number values, as in 4321 being in the four thousands? That is, do you start with structure and then add ordered increments?

I only ask you to refresh things that you have learn in school, and do that in an axiomatic “questioning” way. The intuition/model if the usual (N, 0, +, *) structure, that is the so called Natural Numbers. Number theorists called them the non negative integers. In school, we learn the base 10 notation for them, 0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9, 10, 11, … 99, 100, 101, …, but to reason about “reasoning about them” it is simpler to define them as 0, the successor of 0, the successor of the successor of 0, … and note them: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), etc.

[rf] Can you explain or demonstrate why or how, this successor notion is really an advantage?   To me, writing and thinking 3 is better than tracking on  s(s(s(0))) or the third successor of zero,  

To me too. It is just a practical notation to define axiomatically the natural numbers. If you use the base two notation, the axioms will be more cumbersome, and the metamathematics (where we will study mathematically the theory and its relation with the arithmetical truth) will become unreadable. 

[rf] That sounds like either an effective psychological defense mechanism or a limiting communication tool.. 

? (It is just notation to ease the (meta)-reasoning.

Also, it seems ~we have already  initiated the number line before associating  s(s(s(0))) with 3.   

It is a just a notation, for what we already understand, usually. 

The first axiom/question is:  do you agree that for all number n, 0 is different from s(n)?

Second question: do you agree that (for all n, m) if s(n) = s(m), then n = m. In English: do you agree that different numbers have different successors?

The precise basic axioms will be, together with some presentation of classical logic:"

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))    

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Nothing else will be assumed. But of course, we assume Mechanism at the meta-level here. It is a consequence of Mechanism that such a theory is enough, and cannot be completed (unless for redundancy).

[rf]  Can you give any possible example  or explanation of Mechanism, and are you saying this is like an unending instruction set?   -- NOT like my DNA, but maybe  like my DNA on epigenetic modifications?

Mechanism is the idea that our bodies are (natural) machine, which means they works through finite local interaction at some description level.

[rf] I don't think this mechanism/machine holds for carbon-water-based organisms like us emersed  within carbon- water - nitrogen- cycles, ecological networks and food chains, etc..

It is here that your bad deduction ability, that you mentioned, might play you a trick. Or perhaps you conceive “machine” only in its old 19th century meaning, which concerns already not your laptop computer.

Then, accepting the Church-Turing thesis, it becomes a theorem that all computations are implemented by all computers, including in elementary arithmetic. 

Machines are finite objects, but they can’t avoid growing up and developing themselves through many histories. Then you have to take into account that the machine’s first person perspective is infinitely distributed on infinitely many computations, and “observably” so below their substitution level (which suggests that the substitution level is the quantum level, which is mainly an isolation notion, than a scale).

[rf] So, what's it mean that we are not such finite machines? 

That we would have infinite abilities, and that we might re-instore an identity machine-matter or mind-brain. Aristotle theology could be saved, in that case. But that would mean that we are back at square 1 for the mind-body problem.

[rf] Re: extra abilities, might those be like those ascribed to, say, Jesus, or perhaps yogiis as I may read in other threads in this forum.  So, most of us are just run of the mill folks but some have and can express special, extra abilities. 

Or would you just counter with those people accessing different classes of mechanism, i.e., is there just ONE finite mechanism for all of us 'machines', or different classes and categories of mechanism? 

It is “well known” (by logicians), since the work of Tarski, Robinson and Mostowski (it has been published in a cheap Dover book), that this theory is Turing-complete. Those axioms implies already the existence of all universal machines, and of all their executions. 

 

You can interpret the axioms like question. x*0 = 0 can be seen as “do I agree with 0*0= 0, and 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0, and 3*0 = 0, etc.

Those axioms sum up well the very elementary arithmetic learned in school.

(To avoid “number idolatry”, sometimes I use another Turing universal theory, the combinators. The Turing universal theory is even shorter:

Kxy = x

Sxyz = xz(yz), but most people are not familiar with the combinators, so I use numbers. Any first order logical specification of a universal machine would do.)

[rf] Like I wrote above,   I sort of get  what you are saying but I sort of think zero exists in math/logic  but doesn't exist out in the wild, or in fields, etc., 

OK. But for me, nothing is conceivably wilder than the arithmetical reality, up to the point of trying to explain how the apparent orders can emerge from the many-dreams realised in arithmetic.

[rf] For that, you probably need to switch over to a different symbol set.

Yes. Numbers do that all the time, relatively to each others.

 

You might confuse the mathematical theories and the mathematical reality. Since Gödel, we have good reason (even theorem assuming mechanism) to believe that the arithmetical reality is quite transcendent. 

[rf] There you go relying upon the unacknowledged fundamental nested structure again -- transcendent.

It follows from the simple arithmetical principles like 5 + 0 = 5 etc. (that is not obvious)

[rf] You are right. It is not obvious (to me) as you have it written.  I am attempting to point out that people including mathematicians, seems to just invoke   "transcending" to a ~higher level but doing so while not acknowledging or explicitly assuming said levels of nested structure or organization to transcend to.

I see such things as indicators of reality being nested structured~duality even though people seem to say they don't have a clue what I am pointing at.  

And, I don't say this just to be reticent and difficult although it is likely part of my blank stare or apparent refusal to eagerly accept that abstract logic and math expressions completely

The math expression does not fully express completely … the arithmetical reality. 

or wholly match up with all ~life transactions. 

That might be true or false, nobody know. But it is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. I push the logic until I see an internal or an external contradictions. 

So, I think I get hung up on that, again, for my quibble or hunch regarding applicability of zero outside of math/logic. 

Hmm… That is applied to physics too, and economy, etc. 

[rf] ?? 

Did your bank account never been equal to 0? You are lucky! 

To be honest, I do not understand how you can think that zero has no application in math and physics. 

[rf] I sort of get that zero is like a balance point in math and physics.  My bank account can reach zero (or below) but that doesn't mean I can't go scrounge for food elsewhere. Vector in engineering problems can balance out. 

What I said and was thinking about was in your logic idea, the notion of being zero- or nothing-based, to me, seems in conflict with meditating on life being eternal and a unity.    So, from that angle, I don't question the recipe or rules where you build up the ~logic, but I'm skeptical about the application of all the logic patterns onto our ~physical and/or life patterns.   

Also, as I said before,   in physics, it seems to me that when one measures and gets nothing, no response, it seems to me that like the ~field is no longer present/existent -- not so much that the parameter's value has just gone to zero  which prompts me to consider that zero field strengths "don't exist".

Maybe you are 'neutral' but your instance sounds quite extreme to me. Something like, your model of consciousness is 100% {1,0} numbers plus math operations, and in order to generate a more complete scientific paradigm you presently  then have to get numbers to regenerate all of known physics.

Not at all. If we are digital machines, we have infinitely many representations/bodies in arithmetic, defined relatively to infinitely many universal numbers/machine/interpreters. We are undetermined on all computations. Physics, and consciousness, "emerges", or "can only be associated" with those infinities, making physics NOT generable by any numbers, or number relations. A priori: there are too much aberrant hallucinations in arithmetic seen from inside. But then Gödel's incompleteness saves Mechanism by showing that the self-referential constraints put exactly a quantum quantization where we need to get a unique measure and a renormalization of some sort, similar to Feynman phase randomization. So it works up to now. 

[rf] Define "works", please.  I suspect you mean something closer to "that's the way things pan out when we assume empty non-nested structure and begin with a cube/subjective-objective "consciousness model", and then add two or three epicycles.”.

A reasoning explains that, when we assume that consciousness is invariant for some Digital substitution, the physical becomes a measure on the semi-computable, made by the machine. That means that the physical must be given by either conjunction of proof and consistency, or proof and truth. 

I got this in the seventies. And when I say that it works, I mean that eventually, in the nineteens, with Gödel’s provability predicate Provable(x), (which is of type belief, by incompleteness, somehow), when x is restricted to the semi-computable, we do get a quantum logics for 

Provable(x) & x”, but also for

Provable(x) & Consistent(x), and even

Provable(x) & Consistent(x) & x,

Each time with x semi-computable, or machine-accessible (in unbounded time).

IF, by the above, you are trying to say, "besides energy, structure is also fundamental", or something along that line,   I might be inclined to agree with you.    I guess you are are posing stuff about "consciousness" and thinking that physics, consciousness and math stack up in a certain kind of way, maybe thinking that viewing things via a universal machine as telescope the "answer" will emerge or appear and confirm the logic stack that you are following. 

~My impression, in the storyline I advocate, is  focusing in on ~life as aerobic respiration reaction gets us the cwb tetrahedral nested structural coding in the 10^20 per second 6^n streams, so we grasp internal representation and expression. After that, we craft echoes for the other parts of the nested structured~duality.     But, again, structure needs to be added in as a fundamental.

I look for an explanation of the origin of the physical laws, which does not put consciousness under the rug, as the average Aristotelian materialist do. 

Usually Mechanism is advocated by materialist, but I try to explain this does not work. Then it is easier to explain how numbers can dream, and how some dreams can develop into stable sharable physical realities, but with no need of ontological stuff.

[rf]  So, is that all predicated on you and I being carbon-water-based organisms able to generate and modify our own look-up tables

Universal numbers support universal number changing their own code and table. No need of water for this.

[rf]  I get the impression that you seem to just assume or imagine being able to WRITE immaterial code and symbols.  In my storyline,  water molecules are a bit like the symbols/paper tape upon which symbols are written. So to initialize the sp^3 hybridized energy pattern, at least, and to persist it, there is a need for water.

 

and adaptive action tapes as something that cannot or should not be happening?  Or have you never consider it or had it put in front of you?

I do, but all universal machines are confronted with this. You just need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science.

[rf]  Smarter people than me have already done so.  Where is the immaterial beef? 

Maybe your substitutions will test out, but the situation I think you currently find yourself in is as "not-a-digital-machine", but more so a "carbon-water-based" [with calcium-phosphorus-inorganics-based features for skeletal support]  organism nested rather deeply in enfolding levels of supportive organization (NSD; nested fields within nested fields), sustained for a while, ...here... on the flip-side of photosynthesis. 

That is very plausible, but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above.

If you claim only water-based entities can live my experiences, it is up to you to point on something not Turing emulable by Water. I don’t see any evidence, although you can see my work as given an experimental method to find such evidence. But up to now, the results confirms Digital Mechanism. 

[rf] Like above, the reason is flawed axioms. 

?   (I am saying that the axioms (mechanism) is confirmed. It makes no sense to say that a there is confirmed by having false axioms). 

You lost me here. We are not reasoning at the same level.

[rf] Where you say: """but why would this not been a part of the universal digital dreams, which exists when we assume no more than the axioms above""",   I look at the situation and suggest, sort of, "Your powers are weak old man" (from Star Wars...), meaning that   developing the mathematical/logical symbolic expression gets you the kinds of things it does, but it apparently cannot or does not or has not yet given a strong enough expression so ~you can grasp what is going on.  From my perspective that would take elevating nested structure and aiming closer to replicate or emulate all of the kinds of nested structural coding that we have going on in and around our atomic-molecular ontology.  

But all of those things don't make any sense within ~your numbers-logic rules since any mention of "atom" is likely only associable with materialism. 

Only if you assume that atoms are made of something primitively material, but there are no evidences for this. In fact there are never been any evidence for primitive matter. My derivation just shows that we could find indirect evidence for it, but the test does not (yet) show it. 

[rf]  Pardon my outburst, but I am assuming atoms are instances od nested structured~duality -- patterns; nested fields within nested fields. 

Another way to consider it is, to me, it seems  you are the one who also assumes that math/logic can or does model or can give accurate insights into human ~consciousness and/or ~self -- however it is said.  Even though we are unity-based beings, your logic is zero-based and thus a little be out of kilter. Not quite applicable to our ~systems. I suggest this is like trying to describe fire in terms of its smoke -- like thinking backwards.   When one gets down to having, let's say, a structurally coded internal representation of surroundings (with links to expression) then that is the system actually generating the externalized math/logic and physical law contents and expressions.    

I do not assume that math or logic can do this or that, because that is simple to derive from the Mechanist Hypothesis. Then the math shows that the machine has the means to understand that its local physics is necessary, and comes from the arithmetical relations, and that makes Mechanism testable. By assuming a *primitive* physical reality, you just put yourself in a position where we will not been able to study simpler hypothesis, and for no reason, because your argument seems to be based on a conception of machine which is no more tenable after Turing discovery of the universal machine, or Kleene’s discovery of the partial recursive functions. To me, the discovery of the universal machine is the biggest discovery made by humanity, even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines).

[rf] We think differently on this. Since I do not understand Turing machines or their significance, I'm not arguing with you. I would ask you, though,  to tweak your system so that it delivers physical intuition with a more terse instruction set. 

Apparently, you are enamoured with the math/standard logic accomplishments/discoveries likely because you are masterful in those expressions, and, for all I (don't) know you yourself are responsible for contributing to such discoveries which IS a big thing.  

In my ignorance of that, I observe "even if nature has made it well before (cells and brains are universal machines)" and attempt to point out one analog modeling way to visualize  how nature does that hat trick in the tetrahedral, sp^3 hybridized carbon-water-based pattern system that we are ALL running.

You seem to suggest my approach might be validated if only I re-configure it in formal logic symbols whereas I am getting the impression that the proof is already in the pudding re: delivering physical intuition WITHOUT dropping down into the abstract math. 

       hunch is over in the la-la land of abstract math, if you need another entity you invoke a duplicator which pulls another rabbit out of the magic hat.

Not at all. The duplicator existence is a theorem derivable from the axiom I gave. You just miss Gödel’s astounding achievement of the arithmetization of metamathematics. You are not alone, despite tuns of book, this is largely ignored, but it changes a lot the possible metaphysics/theology available when assuming Mechanism.

[rf] Which mechanism, though? 

I don't totally mean to demean abstract math and logic but I am trying to make the point that  what we are running is all "carbon-water-based" structural coding

I agree, but there could be a reason why. And the fact that we are emulate by a “machinery” does not make necessarily that “machinery” made of stuff, or being the most fundamental. 

With mechanism, it is very simple: ANY Turing universal machine is enough. The theology and the physics cannot depend on the choice of the ontological theory. Theology, which includes physics, becomes “machine-independent”, as the computer scientist says about laws about programs which does not depend on the chosen programming language or machine. 

[rf] Perhaps you are correct, but OTOH, "Who made you God?" -- perhaps you are not correct.  

[rf] Yes, okay, different instances of nested structured~duality.  But all of us here in the local region are running the carbon-water-based organism structural coding.  Again, I suggest it's more to do with specific structure (structured~duality)  than with mechanism.

That is possible. Many contingencies are in play in the computations in arithmetic. In the world where an asteroid did not fall on Earth some millions years ago, I am a dinosaur … Maybe there are worlds with a different Planck constant, etc. What is nice with mechanism is that we find the “absolute” physics which is the same for all universal machine, then consciousness differentiate on different histories.

[rf] It sounds like a rich instance. How likely is it, and realistically, how long would it take ~me as a 67 year old ex-civil engineer with low aptitude for math and logic  to learn and faithfully re-create ALL of your developments and contributions? 

and in that, we have to have the spare parts readily available in order to actually structurally code a somewhat complete ~thought and certainly to do a comm link so as to express it.

If your theory doesn't have, yet have,  or care about having a somewhat accurate pattern match with our actual pattern matchings, then   you likely don't need to be concerned with such and can continue on your own way. 

On the contrary, I am all for the testing. I predicted most quantum weirdness from the assumption of mechanism, but it took me a lot of years to get the quantum logics from pure math, and the test confirms all of them. As they are different, surely we can progress.

[rf] Not to subtract from your accomplishments, but I am still curious about how I can start with five water to align four rod magnets along radii of a tetrahedron and get physical intuition on variable density multiple states. And then get more states by nesting structures -- without using much if any abstract math.

The problem is that you need math to make predictions, so that we can compare with other theories.

[rf]  Abstract math?  Even when the measures are terseness and  delivering physical intuition?

 

Then, my point illustrates that the alternative “materialism” is also tested, but get no confirmation. If you invoke a metaphysical reality, like a primitively material universe, it is up to you to present evidence. All what I show is that weak materialism (the belief in primary matter) and Mechanism, (the belief that consciousness is invariant for the digital local transplant) are not compatible (contrary to what atheist materialist often defend).

[rf]  Can you clarify or spread that out a bit more?

It is not obvious. I am describing a result which too many years of work, but you can get the gist of it by reading the argument in 8 steps in the sane04 paper(*).

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and 

Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

[rf] Thanks. I will try to read through it again. 

That's still too complicated a statement for me to follow.   From my perspective I still say that you have still done all of what you say relying upon and using the carbon-water-basis ~tetrahedral-like structural coding.  

OK. But not in any fundamental way (or you have to prove this). There is no doubt that carbon is important, but with mechanism it is only necessary for our histories, or not, depending on your work or similar. Open problem. 

[rf] Ok, so does this mean there ARE different mechanisms, and differing descriptions or exemplars of the different mechanisms and so a model that had a short recipe yet delivered more consistent and more increments of physical intuition would be more effective than longer, less productive mechanisms? 

Also, once you acquire a match, even an approximate enough pattern match, the approach to resolving the problem changes    in a somewhat disruptive manner.

?

[rf] Once you acquire even an approximate, ~working  "internal model of consciousness", abstract math symbols and expressions  and logic structures become secondary devices. 

Math symbols and expressions are secondary in mathematics, but they become primary in the mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow. But consciousness is beyond symbols, even provably so with mechanism. Symbols are like bodies: their use is for relative communication, not for the things in itself. (Already in mathematics, but here I am aware that some people confuse mathematical theories (which uses symbols), and the mathematical reality (which does not use symbols).

[rf] I differ on that notion on symbols as primary in  "mathematical theory of symbols and expressions, like in logic, a bit like neurons are primary in neurophysiology, somehow".   Assume it is the day after the neuron model has been completely validated. Then you face that all your external symbols are still secondary to the primary internal structural coding (in the neural network, or in the cwb analog model, etc.,)

Otherwise you would not get up each morning and eat breakfast to get the energy and ideas  to express proposing swapping IN digital machine substitutions for what is already working. 

I do not see why (and by experience, people who think there are evidence are usually confusing universal machine with total computable automata).

[rf] Don't see why - what?   

The 19th century did have a reductionist conception of machine. Since Gödel and Turing, we know that the universal machine are terrible unknown. I did not see why you said the sentence above, and I was suggesting you might use a reductionist conception of machines.

[rf] My impression is I am not following that approach. I've taken a different path through the woods.   I ~feel more like I am just taking the givens, choosing a different nested structured~duality  and  showing how to get a structured  internal representation of surroundings nested within our ontology. 

I may make reference to "machine", but I do more mean "organism" and one that is quite smeared out within our surroundings. 

From their first person conscious points of view, machines are quite smeared in the whole (non computable) arithmetical reality. I use organisms and mechanism mostly as synonymous. A machine/organism is anything working without magic, say.

[rf] How do you grade on level of synergy or on nesting or recursion levels? Are these the same or different mechanisms or classes of mechanism, to you?

 So, yes, reduced down to organic chemistry and a handful of sp^3 hybridized ~tetrahedral-like patterns, but also smeared out amid several nested fields within nested fields.

Also, there is the still unaddressed question about quick testing for the alleged underlying digital machine merely by shutting off oxygen supply (while being careful).

Below our substitution level, we cannot find an underlying digital, machine. Digital mechanism predicts that we will detect an infinity of “parallel” computations, made by an infinity of different universal machine/numbers. “I am a machine” entails, by the first person indeterminacy (see my sane04 paper) that neither the physical reality, nor any form of consciousness is digitally emulable. This can be used to refuted the thesis of “digital physics”, which cannot work (with or without computationalism). We must not confuse the thesis that we are digitally emulable, and that this or that reality is digitally emulable.

[rf] So what does it mean in your theory if we shut off/revise your oxygen supply and you lose consciousness and/or can't  write logically correct statements, if all of that is substitutable with digital mechanism? 

If you limit my supply of oxygen I will die relatively to you. From my first person perspective I will survive in the computations where you don’t do that, or in any other consistent history close (in some sense related to the logic of self-reference).

It is the frightening aspect of mechanism: we can’t die. But theoretical computer science (intensional number theory) suggests the existence of jumps, if not, like I say above, much more sophisticated bardo.To leave the cycle of death and rebirth is not easy.

[rf] I agree with your last statement but not from the math analysis. Moreso from reading a bit about and my own  small, different varieties of religious experiences.   I can ~imagine/~remember what it is/could be like.   Sort of like waking up from anesthesia  only it wasn't just anesthesia -- having missed the funeral in the prior world and taking up in the ~same but slightly different  Everette-many-worlds place.   

If you can emulate or discover  that in math, that is quite an accomplishment.

Thank you. It is the easiest part actually. Read the argument in 8 steps and ask question, if interested.

I sort of track on your jumping to the conclusion that physics is just numbers

Physics is not numbers, but it is the shape of arithmetic seen by the number themselves, and the result (physics) is not Turing emulable, as I said just above.

--physics was the art of measuring numbers...-- but I don't share that misunderstanding, probably due to my provincial engineering/empirical/analog leanings. 

In my university, I have been understood by the engineers and the biologists, before physicists and mathematicians. I suspect you just lack a bit of theoretical computer science and/or Mathematical Logic. It is indeed not very well taught.

 The features' descriptions may reduce down to codings in numbers, but the original discernments of ~laws once involved wrestling logs as lever arms to lift heavy stones, etc., magnifying or enabling what would otherwise be impossible. So there is a repeatable  energy conservation discernment which minimally involves appreciation of the added value involved with the pattern and sequencing.~First comes raw appreciation of the "simple machines" (like also with the non-classical magnetic tetrahedron), then there are other developments and descriptions. After the fact,  yes it seems like everything, including being surprised by unexpected outcomes, reduces to numbers. And perhaps it does. But that is still a ~secondary abstraction or after the fact model of a model which is "carbon-water-calcium-inorganic-based.

Or so it appears to me.  

I don’t see why. And where would the calcium come from? 

[rf] Are you saying you don't see why or what life and living has to do with thinking math logic thoughts?

I mean I keep my mind open to the idea that our physical universal might have life form based on different constituents and set of laws, and doubly so with mechanism, where we are at light years to get something like our three dimensional or 24 dimensional physical theories. But physics, as ontological science, is refuted, from the mechanist perspective. But physics has not been invented for doing metaphysics, so that is rather normal.

 

The consequence of digital mechanism are invariant for the type of machine used. If some quantum mechanical feature of calcium is needed for the mind, that is OK. Mechanism remains true even if the brain is a quantum computer. To make Mechanism false, you need to invoke strong infinities, not recoverable by the natural infinities the machine can “feel” in arithmetic. 

[rf]  As above,  in math you can just make things appear. In life, one is inside a more deeply nested flow. 

In arithmetic, physical things can be explained as being apparently appearing. If not, you might be begging the question, and committing yourself ontologically. Better not to do that if we do metaphysics scientifically, to get the empirical tests.

It sounds elegant, but a bit lopsided since what was given through empirical balancing acts now has to be "experienced" solely through abstract math. 

Not just abstract math: you need the invariance of consciousness for the digital substitution. That demands some act of faith. It is a form of belief in some form of reimplementation, or reincarnation. 

[rf] I'd say you need the right structure. 

Mechanism is the non constructive bet that such a right structure exists, is finitely describable relatively to some “physical” universal numbers (computer). No machine can prove that such a level exists, but we can be lucky by doing the right bet (at that level or below).

And then the rest follows, with, at the propositional level, like a gift, decidable theories for both the decidable and undecidable (meta) parts. We could not have been more lucky! At higher levels, the theories enters in the non computable part of arithmetic, as we could have expected.

[rf]  You have disappeared behind your veil.    Are you proposing, like, programming a chip like on my Mastercard, and attaching a battery and I/O wires and embedding it in place of my faulty amygdala  and then tweaking the program so to get "the right" vibrations or hums in the digital mechanism?     And, of course I have to have some faith in the surgeon, etc. 

Yes. Faith is needed. No machine at all can know which machine she is. To say “yes” to the doctor need a leap of courage and faith. 

 I mean, I have read about advances in implantations for vision, seizures, pacemakers, etc., but aren't those still vibrational devices? 

Yes, but if mechanism is correct, you will have all the vibrations needed in arithmetic. ‘Or in combinators based theories, etc.).

 How would your device substitute for my degraded optic nerve that leaves me blind in my left eye?  Or are you pointing at something deeper and less applied -- more creative?

Yes? I start from the bet that we are Turing emulable, and then shows that this points on the idea that Aristotle’s materialism is wrong, and Plato skepticism is well founded. All universal machine have a rich theology which is very close to the Vedas (I think), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and somehow, most mystical discourses.

[rf] These same folks are also aerobic creatures running the ~same carbon-water-based structural coding. 

On earth, not in heaven. But with mechanism, even heaven seems to obey to some quantum mechanics. But to explain this, I would need to explain much more material. Someday maybe.

[rf] Hey, thanks.  I appreciate the "on Earth, not in heaven" distinction to clarify a bit on "carbon-water-based" as a partial or temporary "training wheels", nesting  derivative.  I still see some sense in sp^3 hybridized ~energy patterns in both. 

I think there IS a hallucination in there but I don't think it belongs to universal numbers.

Are you sure you have grasped the concept?  Universal machine/number are like QM. The more you know about, the more you realize you don't know.

[rf] Pardon my negative comment. I don't grasp your notion.  "My model"  gets in the way of ~seeing what you are pointing at. 

I am not sure your “model” (theory) is at fault. It is more your lack of familiarity with the universal machines or numbers. I think.

I'm hung up on  or blind to what elements and artifacts you intend to insert,

None.

where and for what, and also   in me thinking that energy collection/conservation is a separate meaning/sustenance system but related to the rather free/automatic structural coding (in the ordered water in respiration) for the internal representation and downstream storage and expressions.    

To me it seems you have to scribble up one number system to emulate solar fusion for photosynthesizing food and getting an oxygen supply and another modified numbers stack for --What?-- a digital mechanism that just generates patterns  but has no energy flow channel?

Listen carefully: once we postulate Digital Mechanism, there is not one piece of matter whose behavior can be Turing emulated. Even the fall of an apple on the ground would need to emulate all computations (finite and non finite), which no universal machine could do in real time.

[rf] I'm still not getting it.    Is it more like the metaphor of being in "The Matrix”? 

It is almost exactly that: except that we are in infinitely many Matrices at once. Then our consciousness will differentiate once the matrices differentiates on different inputs or oracle (possibly non computable inputs on which the arithmetical reality dovetails).

[rf] Nested fields within nested fields.    

Each time you say that, I think of the Mandelbrot set. Look at the video here which illustrates well the nesting in the nesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIEG0DRMZCE.    (6 nesting)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJSPnF92N5E.   (3 nesting)

Note that such complex structure is entirely determined by a very simple equation: it is the domain of the cycling trajectories of the complex numbers z when iterating f(z) = z^2 + c, for all c in the rational-complex plane. It is an open problem if that set is Turing equivalent.

[rf] Each time I use that phrase I think of us bobbling along in the local solar fusion flux and variable mass density quantum gravity. 

  I'd still like to have a picture or description of a Digital Mechanism" or what to imagine as being one nested within another one.

There vertical and horizontal nesting. Universal number mimicking universal numbers mimicking universal numbers etc. But with the self-reference you have universal numbers mimicking themselves (cf the video showing the game of life emulating the game of life), and circular “nestings”. 

[rf] Like sequences of DNA coding for  certain amino acid chains giving rise to catalytic or inhibitory enzymes?

Yes, and enzymes acting on the DNA, etc.

All the best,

Bruno

And Best Regards to you,

Ralph Frost, Ph.D. 

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com 

Ralph 

That seems to be the empty gulf.

I can explain. or give reference. The first 65 pages of Martin Davis "Computability and Unsolvability" should be enough, but it requires a bit of confidence in the use of symbols. 

[rf] If by use of symbols you mean the ~formal  logic and mathematical logic symbols, my eyes have already rolled and I am now looking for something shiny or the door or both.  It's very unlikely I would have the necessary reading comprehension. 

I guess you have been traumatised by a bad math teacher. It is alas very common. I have a vocation to cure people having had that bad experience …. Your writing, if I do not too much over-interpret them, seems to show you have the abilities required. It is actually very easy.

Mathematics is the most beautiful thing, but it is very often as a torture instrument by very bad teacher, or as a tool to discriminate people, when actually Mathematics is so large that there are parts for everybody.

I have heard about an artist of Jazz who eventually abandon Music for Mathematics by judging that Mathematics allows far more freedom, and gives far more inspiration than Music. In fact, for some mathematicians, mathematics is only beauty, but my source is in the Mystery, which can be seen as sort of beauty too.

[rf] Before I would blame my high school geometry teacher for me not tracking on proofs, I'd dial back to hitting my head on a rock when I was ten-ish, or simply just not having that sort of aptitude.  Although I think of myself as a tactile learner,  basically if I can't ~picture or sketch a diagram or something ~visular or imaginativeI probably will not understand it or have "a way in".    It's my lack.     

Diagrams are very good, and bad teachers are very bad. There are also personal affinities, but everyone can

...

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c6a4b98a-c85f-4699-bdbc-50c9e53070d7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.