<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear Joseph,<div><br></div><div>Thanks you for your comment.</div><div><br><div><div>On 12 Feb 2016, at 18:29, Joseph Brenner wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3">Dear Folks,<o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3">I return following absence due to travel to Bruno’s interesting note of February 3. I appreciate the opportunity it provides for discussion and comparison of two very different approaches as to what is important in the Foundations of Information Science. The A sections below are my understandings of Bruno and the B’s my position. Direct quotes from Bruno are so indicated.<o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3">1. A. Whatever ‘was’ present ‘when’ there was something rather than nothing, natural numbers = Shannon information could be assigned to ‘it’, and the generation of interpretations of that information by putative universal Turing machines ‘became’ possible.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As a logician, I know that I can derive my starting assumption, elementary arithmetic(*) RA (Robinson arithmetic) from just logic.</div><div><br></div><div>(*) RA is classical predicate logic + the non logical axiom:</div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">0 ≠ s(x)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">s(x) = s(y) -> x = y</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x+0 = x</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x+s(y) = s(x+y)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x*0=0</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial; ">x*s(y)=(x*y)+x</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>But to be sure I could take any first-order logical Turing complete theory, it happens that the theory above is taught in high school, so I use it for the basic ontology and laws.</div><div><br></div><div>I will define an observer by someone who believe (or assert) that theory, together with the induction axioms (like Peano Arithmetic):</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; ">(F(0) & For all x (F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> For all x F(x)</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; ">I "interview" in RA the machine/number emulating those believers in RA.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; ">As a mathematician, I simplify things maximally, of course. But the fact that we have to proceed like to explain the relation between first person subjectivity and stable appearances, did not depend on the simplification made to get the constructive part of the reasoning.</div></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3">B. If this can be taken to mean that information and matter-energy are not identical but emerged together from some unknown substrate I have no problem.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, except there is no substrate, only the additive+multiplicative number structure. It is Turing complete, and that is enough for the base ontology. With less than that, we don't have universal machine, and their computations.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: blue; "><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: Helvetica; color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">2. A. One can extend the putative operations of the Turing machines to the numerical aspects of natural phenomena, which include the machines themselves, and further ascribe their inability to operate in certain areas as a putative cognition. This is ‘mathematical reality’.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I prefer to not assume natural phenomena, as I have to explain the *appearances* of them from a statistics on all computations going from a relative state of a universal machine to another one.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">B. We may, as an exercise which reminds one of the science-fiction of Stanislas Lem, ascribe a degree of self-reference to the operations we are observing.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but in arithmetic, incompleteness introduces to type of nuances: the distinction between Reason and Truth, and the distinction between belief, knowledge, observability and sensibility. They all are based on the same accessible arithmetical relations, but they obey very different logic, from intuitionist to quantum, each inheriting the splitting between reason-communicable/true-non-communicable. The quanta, in that setting are communicable and sharable qualia, somehow.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">3. A. “None of the internal logics of the universal machine is classical logic. It oscillates between intuitionist logic and quantum logic, with some intuitionist quantum logic and quantum intuitionist logic.” In all intuitionist logics, the Axiom of absolute Non-Contradiction is retained although that of the Excluded Middle is weakened.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed, I keep the absolute non-contradiction principle on the base propositions (the arithmetical propositions). I derive the weakening of the logic of knowledge and matter from the nuances brought by incompleteness. No machine introspecting itself can miss them, if she believe in the induction axioms.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">B. Such non-classical logics are fine for the universal machines as defined, but they remain propositional logics. </font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, the extension in first order logic exists, and some have been studied. The russian logicians have proved that they are highly undecidable. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">In my non-propositional logic in and of non-arithmetical reality, </font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The arithmetical reality seen from inside by the arithmetical creature is NOT arithmetical, in fact it is not even analytical, and with mechanism not even purely mathematical. The inside is not entirely captured by the outside.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">key Axioms are of Conditional Contradiction and the Included Middle. No intuitionist logics can be applied to real, contradictorial and emergent processes in the thermodynamic world.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not sure why. Obviously, I study an ideal case, but to derive the laws of physics, that is the simplest way. Machines in real time have to develop a non monotonic layer of beliefs, and paraconsistent system, I agree. But for "theology" and the origin of the appearance of physical realities, this is not necessary. Our goal are different here.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">4. B I accept the correction that computers work according to data, etc. and only interpret like algorithms.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For a universal machine, one of the data is interpreted as an algorithm, and the other data is conceived as a number. The universal machine extract information and made it into some kind of activity.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">5. A. A mechanistic view predicts empirical structures for universal machine ‘experiences’ = operations.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Not really. The operation are third person notion, but the experiences are first person notion. They can be defined by linking the self-representation with truth. As truth cannot be defined in the language of the machine, she will be unable to even give a name to its knowing part. The first person distinguish herself from any third person description, and can actually refute them all, in some sense. The soul of the machine is NOT a machine.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> “If we are not machines, this provides the tool to measure the degree of (local) non-computationalism. In that case I would bet we are in a (physical, in the computationalist sense described above) simulation.”<o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">B. SINCE we are not machines, I am not sure that local non-computability can be measured this way but it is a fair question. However, SINCE we are not machines, I do not see the need for calling our existence a simulation!</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How do you know that we are not machine?</div><div>We have not yet discovered one natural process which is not Turing-emulable, except the not quite intelligible collapse of the wave packet.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, I do not claim mechanism is true, only that it is incompatible with physicalism, materialism, and that it suggest an arithmetical interpretation of Plato, which is testable, as it predicts physics, and its logical structure, and indeed up to now, it is verified by quantum logic and physics.</div><div><br></div><div>For not being a machine, we need actual infinities, or spooky action at a distance, but it is not yet clear this can change the logic of self-reference, which predicts some appearances of such phenomena.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><o:p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">We thus have available two sets of tools, one for reality and one for mathematical reality.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Assuming there is anything more than arithmetic. I am agnostic. It is part of what I am studying.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="color: blue; "><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> The key would seem to me to make sure they are used in their proper respective informational domains.</font></font></span></div></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Except for your "since we are not machine", I am not sure the logical approach is incoherent with the informational approach, unless the information is reified through physical concept, like energy. This can be done for practical purpose, but if mechanism is correct, that "energy" appearance has to be justified from intensional (modal) statistics on self-reference.</div><div><br></div><div>The arithmetical reality is a block-mindscape, with an internal unboundably complex reality including, when linked with the notion of (arithmetical) truth with qualitative aspect, some non justifiable, but still discoverable, by the machine.</div><div><br></div><div>Machine is not use in a metaphorical sense. It is used in the sense that we can concretely survive through a physical computer prosthesis, so that consciousness is invariant for digital physical substitution at some level of self-description. Then we can prove that we cannot know that level, nor know which machine we are, and that we are distributed in the arithmetical reality. If the machine dreams does not cohere enough to get the full quantum mechanics, that should be testable.</div><div><br></div><div>I still don't know if memories filter consciousness or enhance it. The relation seems complex and non linear. Here the informational approach, when properly related to the self-referential logical approach, might add some light on that important problem.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bruno</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><blockquote dir="ltr" style="border-left-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; ">----- Original Message -----</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="marchal@ulb.ac.be" href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be">Bruno Marchal</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">Joseph Brenner</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="fis@listas.unizar.es" href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</a></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:45 AM</div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; "><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Fis] Fw: Information Conservation in black holes</div><div><br></div>Dear Joseph,<div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:31, Joseph Brenner wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; "><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Dear John,</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Sorry you have been ill.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">I agree fully with your statement:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font color="#333333" face="Calibri">All of these explanations, and even stating the problem, require information notions, not just energy as in classical physics.</font></font></div><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Calibri"></font> </div><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial">What I object to are statements or implications that information, whether in boundaries or not, is ontologically prior to and/or independent of energy.</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I beg to differ on this. I consider Shannon information as given freely by the numeration of natural numbers in base two or higher, or sequence of them.</div><div><br></div><div>The interesting things is not information/number, but the interpretation of such information, and this can be defined at first by what the universal machines do when given such information/number.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial">This is how the positions of people like Lloyd and Tegmark come out, giving 'computation' an agential, anthropomorphically flavored role at the ground of the universe.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Lloyd and Tegmark seem not really aware of the importance of the discovery of the universal machine, by Emil Post, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, and some others. That is mainly a discovery in arithmetic, as a very weak segment of arithmetic is already Turing universal, and so emulate all Turing universal system.</div><div><br></div><div>This is not anthropomorphically flavored, it is Turing-machine, or universal number-morphically flavored. A concept definable in elementary arithmetic. That concept generalizes both human, bacteria, and the physical computer.</div><div><br></div><div>It is also a theorem of arithmetic, accessible to the universal machine themselves, and once they "believe" in enough induction axiom, they get the cognitive ability to deduce their own limitation, and to begin to measure the gap between provable and true. A gap which entails many modal nuances in the ways the machine can refer to itself, and what she can prove and expect, and hope or fear with respect to some universal goal (like "help yourself").</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial">The establishment by Wu Kun and others of information as a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><em>category</em>implies separation only in classical logic and category theory, which are just as limiting as the classical physics John refers to.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Classical logic is the simplest logic, and so the more polite to use to describe the other logics. </div><div>None of the internal logics of the universal machine is classical logic. It oscillates between intuitionist logic and quantum logic, with some intuitionist quantum logic and quantum intuitionist logic.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial">A basic problem is the inability of people to keep in mind the operation of two aspects of phenomena, cooperative and antagonistic, at the same time.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can agree with this. My favorite exemple is that intelligence is needed to develop competence, but competence has a negative feedback on intelligence.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial">Computers work according to algorithms.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not really. They work according to data, number, information, that they interpret at some level like an algorithm, or like data. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial">The ground of the universe, in my view, is in the tension, not the separation, between being and non-being, and no algorithm can handle that (now who is being anthropomorphic?!)</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Tegmark and Lloyd miss that elementary arithmetic is Turing complete. So we don't know really if there is a physical universe. </div><div><br></div><div>We know only that there is an infinitely complex reality of all computations, in arithmetic. Complex, as most relations between form and function are not algorithmically decidable.</div><div><br></div><div>Yet, the self-reference ability of the universal machine suggests to define the physical reality by what makes some number dream stable and sharable, and apparently it is not much more than self-referential correctness and consistency.</div><div>The (full) arithmetical reality, the one which contains all prime numbers and "can decide" the Riemann hypothesis, is also full of relative number experience/dream, some stable and sharable. In a testable way, at least for precise version like classical computationalism.</div><div><br></div><div>Mechanism predicts the multi-verse apparent empiric structure by a more general multi-experiences structure. But it is not human experience, it is the universal machine experience.</div><div>If we are not machine, this provides the tool to measure the degree of (local) non-computationalism. In that case I would bet we are in a (physical, in the computationalist sense described above) simulation.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bruno</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-CA" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Cheers,</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Joseph</font></div><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Calibri"></font> </div><div><font color="#333333" size="2" face="Calibri"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal arial; ">----- Original Message -----<div style="background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228); background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; "><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="Collierj@ukzn.ac.za" href="mailto:Collierj@ukzn.ac.za" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">John Collier</a></div><div><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a title="fis@listas.unizar.es" href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">fis</a></div><div><b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Saturday, January 30, 2016 4:58 PM</div><div><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[Fis] Information Conservation in black holes</div></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><br></div><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">List,<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">Sorry I haven’t been able to respond to the interesting remarks on my last post, but it took a while to digest them, and my current health concerns take up a lot of my time, so I haven’t had time to come up with responses that are properly thought out.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">In the meantime, here is an interesting Nature news report about Hawking’s (and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; ">Strominger’s)<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>recent proposal for how information can be preserved in black holes (which his 1976 paper set up as a problem for the laws of physics, which imply information conservation at the most basic level. The solution involves a way empty space can carry information in QM via “soft particles”. The answer is apparently not completely worked out as yet, and there are critics.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists-1.19236?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160128&spMailingID=50572206&spUserID=MTc2NjY1MTQ2NQS2&spJobID=843774519&spReportId=ODQzNzc0NTE5S0" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists-1.19236?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160128&spMailingID=50572206&spUserID=MTc2NjY1MTQ2NQS2&spJobID=843774519&spReportId=ODQzNzc0NTE5S0</a><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">Seth Lloyd described a different possible explanation in his book<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i><a title="" href="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Programming_the_Universe" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos</a></i>, <a title="" href="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Alfred_A._Knopf" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">Knopf</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(2000) that involves taking into consideration the information in boundaries, which I found plausible, since the information preservation in physics follows from consideration of basic laws together with the constraints of boundary conditions, neither<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>alone.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">Perhaps the two approaches are not really distinct. They may eventually cast light on each other. For the time being the Hawking/<span style="background-color: white; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; ">Strominger proposal also looks like it can solve the “firewall” problem as well, which has the Black Hole boundary being very hot (again, contrary to physical expectations), because information can be transferred into radiation instead of energy, so the information transfer doesn’t require a high temperature at the black hole boundary, unlike other forms of radiation production. All of these explanations, and even stating the problem, require information notions, not just energy as in classical physics.</span><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><span>John Collier<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><span>Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><span>University of KwaZulu-Natal<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><span><a href="http://web.ncf.ca/collier" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://web.ncf.ca/collier</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0cm; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><font face="Calibri"></font><font face="Calibri"></font><hr><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br></div></span></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows: 2; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; border-collapse: separate; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; letter-spacing: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><a href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br></div></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><a href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/</a></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>