<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Pedro, dear Jerry, dear List,
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div dir="ltr">
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">On
07 Mar 2017, at 04:36, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">de
Chardin has also cast a long and durable shadow over my mind
for decades for decades. His writings both provides some
guidance on the form of time and opens rich questions that
bring fruit.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)"> While
I appreciate the flow of concepts emerging from Bruno’s
“poetry”, its guidance appears to exclude chemistry and
biology.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
approach that I have sketched here is top down. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">I
show that if we assume a (rather weak compared to most version
in the literature) Digital Mechanist hypothesis, biology and
chemistry/physics have to be derived from arithmetic. To be
exact, physics has to be derived from the introspective
"theology" of the universal machine (which has the cognitive
ability to know that she is universal), and that is reducible
to elementary arithmetic (although the complete logic of the
proper theological part escape its computable part: after
Gödel we know that elementary arithmetic is in-exhaustively
complicated. The amazing thing is that the propositional part
of that theology is decidable, and that is enough to get the
propositional part of the physics and compare it with the
logic of the observable (quantum logic).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">I
can explain more or give references. It is not obvious and ask
for some amount of work, even more for those not familiar with
the work of Church, Post, Kleene, Turing, Gödel and many
others.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">We
have something like:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Number(with
+ and *) => Number's dreams statistics => Physics =>
human biology</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">Thus,
Bruno’s associations are not so clear to me. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">This
provides evidence you have a sane mind :)</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica"> No
problem. I am summarizing many years of work based on results
which are not well known as I have eventually understood.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
basic idea is simple, but hard to swallow for the
physicalists, and they are somehow mocked and insulted, as
pagan theology, since 1500 years. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">So,
I will be a “spoil sport” and look toward a more
“life-friendly” flow of both symbols and numbers with only a
tad of poetry. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)"> </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">On
Mar 3, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be"><span
style="color:rgb(0,102,190)">marchal@ulb.ac.be</span></a>>
wrote:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">My
favorite de Chardin's proposition is, from memory:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">
"We are not human beings having spiritual experiences, we
are spiritual beings having human experiences.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">That
is close to the theology of the neopytagorean Moderatus of
Gades, and close to the neoplatonist Plotinus, Porphyry, ...
And they are formally close to the "theology" of the universal
numbers. (and even intuitively so assuming the
computationalist hypothesis in cognitive science, through
sequence of thought experiences).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">The
tensions between the computational natures of discrete and the
“continuous” numbers haunts any attempt to make mathematical
sense out of scientific hypotheses. I am uncertain as to the
logical implication of the “computationalist’s hypothesis" in
this context.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">If
you are aware of the notion of first person indeterminacy, it
is not so difficult to understand how the appearance of the
continuum can be explained to be unavoidable in the
digital-mechanist frame. The physical reality will emerge from
a statistics on infinities of computations (including many
with Oracles). Amazingly, in the digitalist frame, it is the
digital which remains hard to understand a priori, but the
mathematics of self-reference gives important clue.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
key here is that mechanism makes us duplicable, and we can't
be aware if some delay is made for the reconstitution of one
of the copy. It is that invariance for the delays of
reconstitution which makes indetermined on an infinity of
computational relations, themselves embedded in non
computational relations with many numbers. But we cannot
invoke oracles, except the halting oracle and the random
oracle. Mechanism predicts the necessity of an apparent
continuum at least.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">Is
the reference grounded in Curry’s combinatorial logic or
otherwise? </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">It
does not. The reasoning is independent of any basic universal
theory chosen. We get the same laws of physics, if we assume
only combinators, or only number, or a quantum computer, etc.
I use the numbers because people are familiar with them, and
they are not "physicalist", so we can't be accused of
"treachery" in the derivation of physics. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Of
course, it is more difficult to prove that elementary
arithmetic is Church-Turing Universal than the same for the
combinators, but it is a well known standard result in logic.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">It
reminds me also of Shrî Aurobindo, when he said:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">"What,
you ask, was the beginning of it all?</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">And
it is this ...</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Existence
that multiplied itself</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">For
sheer delight of being</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">And
plunged into numberless trillions of forms</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">So
that it might</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Find </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Itself</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Innumerably"</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0)">I
have some minor problems with the present essay, but
substituting some of the excessively teleological "purposive"
terms about life (perhaps all of them?), and using instead a
more austere description of organizational facts.... who
knows! If life contains a unitary principle, I think it is
more subtle, and cannot be expressed in unilateral physical
terms </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Provably
so if we assume mechanism. Contrarily to a widely spread
opinion: mechanism is not compatible with even quite weak form
of materialism, or physicalism.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">The
connotations of the term “mechanism” varies widely from
discipline to discipline.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">The
sense of “mechanism” in chemistry infers an electrical path
among the discrete paths of illations that “glue” the parts
into a whole. By sublation, this same sense is used in
molecular biology and the biomedical sciences. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">Bruno,
could you expand on your usage in this context? </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Mechanism,
as I use it, is the hypothesis that a level of digital
substitution exist where I would survive through a physical
digital computer in place of the "brain", in some generalized
sense. the consequence does not depend on the level chosen: it
could be at the level of string theory, with a brain as great
as the observable universe. In that sense the hypothesis is
very weak. Even if you estimate that to survive, we need to
emulate the quantum evolution (known to be Turing emulable) at
the level of quark, the consequence would follow.
Non-mechanist have to justify the need of actual infinities,
or substantial spiritual entities. Diderot defined
"rationalism" by such Cartesian Mechanism. Yet, such Mechanism
is incompatible with the *assumption* of an ontologically
primary physical universe.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">How
do the senses of “computationism" and “mechanism” refer to the
material world, if at all?</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
notion of computation is born in pure mathematics, and
eventually shown to be a purely arithmetical notion (even
sigma_1 arithmetical: it needs only a very tiny part of
elementary arithmetic). Whatever you can do with a (physical
or not) *digital* computer is "already" done in elementary
arithmetic, which contains the description and execution of
all programs.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
"universal dovetailer argument" ---that you can found here for
example:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)"><span
style="text-decoration:underline"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html</a></span></p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">explains
how the appearance of the material world has to emerge from
all relative computations. The math explains then that they do
emerge indeed, until now. Physics becomes a relative
statistics made on all the infinitely many computations (which
exists in arithmetic) going through or local (relative)
computational state. I predicted both the quantum logical
formalism and the "many-world" view of the physical reality
from computationalism, well before I grasped that quantum
mechanics confirms this. Indeed, before learning abaout
quantum mechanics, I thought being close to a refutation of
Mechanism.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Some
clues make also very plausible that we will get the
reversibility and linearity/unitarity of the fundamental
equation of physics.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0)">such
as maximum entropy production, symmetry restoration, free
energy maximization, etc. Well, symmetry and information have
more clout and hidden complexity, so I express not a rejection
but some uneasiness regarding too direct "orthogenetic" views
on biological and social evolution. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0)">My
further suggestion --could it be a good idea that you change
Monod's style "unpleasantness" (Oh, we the accidental discover
that we are alone in the cosmos!) and point towards some of
Teilhard's and Vernadsky's noosphere and the Omega Point? You
would have several curious items to choose...</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(105,9,0)">More
opinions??</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">God
created the natural numbers, and saw that it was good.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">Would
it be more accurate to that “"God" created the internal
creativity of the atomic numbers."</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">I
was just saying, albeit poetically indeed, that the "theory
of everything", (still in the frame of the digital mechanist
hypothesis), can't assume more than classical logic + the
following axioms:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:arial">0
≠ (x + 1)</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:arial">((x
+ 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:arial">x
= 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Together
with (just below):</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Then
she said: add yourself, and saw that is was good.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">x
+ 0 = x</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">x
+ (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">And:</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Then
she said: multiply yourself.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">x
* 0 = 0</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">x
* (y + 1) = (x * y) + x</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">And
nothing else.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">And
then ... she said: oops, ... and lose control.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Because,
once you have addition and multiplication of natural numbers,
you get Turing-universality, and the universal machine. If you
can agree that 2+2=4" independently of you and me, then the
behavior of all machines becomes realized, and this
independently of any other assumptions.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">I
agree that it seems amazing, but that follows from the
mathematical (and then arithmetical) discovery of the
Universal Machine (by Turing, and others). I tend to prefer
calling the universal machine *universal numbers*, to
emphasize their finite nature and arithmetical nature. Turing
made its machine having an infinite tape, but it is not part
of the description of the machine, and that tape plays only
the role of an environment. Computer and universal machine are
essentailly finite entities, and they provably exist in the
arithmetical reality (in any "model" (in the logician sense)
of some elementary arithmetic theory). But they are confronted
to infinities, and even different types of infinities
according to the points of view possible (the arithmetical
hypostases).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">The
addition of the atomic numbers has bounds because it is not
linked to the concept of variables. How does one see the
internal controls without the geometry associated with
variables? (In the absence of a Cartesian co-ordinate
system?)</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">This
is unfortunately very long to explain.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica"> In
a nutshell, taking the risk of being too much poetical,
variables, geometries, time, any physicalities, is in the mind
of the universal numbers, and emerge from the statistics of
personal continuations, which are infinitely distributed in
the arithmetical reality.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">We
are light years away from getting the "atomic number", or of
the atom itself, or even elementary particles. We get the
quantum logic, and may be the symmetries of the Hamiltonian;
not the constant, if that exists. The point is that we have no
choice: if digital mechanism is correct, atomic number,
quantum chemistry, etc must be derived from just arithmetic,
or be recongnized as historico-geographical (and not *laws*,
then).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Like
the complexity of the prime numbers distribution already
illustrates, the logicians know that classical logic +
addition of integers + multiplication of integers leads to the
Church-Turing Universality of the reality under concern,
"generating *all* universal numbers, and they know that the
universal machines, or universal numbers put a lot of mess in
Plato Heaven. The price of universality is loss of
controllability, and the appearances of realms defying all
complete theories.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">The
perplexity of the atomic numbers creates its internal
co-ordination without an apparent source of “universality” or
“universal numbers”. The ampliative logic of electrical
bindings appears to create irregular self-regulation without a
concept of mechanical control. Can a vision of "Plato’s
heaven” take root and grow without universal numbers? In
Curry combinatorial logic sufficient?</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
universal numbers are just there, although it would be more
exact to talk about "universal computable relations", but they
can be identified with numbers once we have fix the basic
ontology (be it numbers, combinators, whatever).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">They
are there, like prime numbers are there, or like the
(semi-computable) order relation are there, etc. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
amount of arithmetical realism needed is the same as the one
you need to just agree with the axioms given above. No need of
special metaphysical platonism here. The lin with
consciousness is done with the believe in survival through
digital transplant *at some level*. It needs to be a bet, as
no machine can justify its substitution level.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">The
physical reality is the border of the arithmetical reality
"seen from inside (by the universal numbers)". The breaking of
symmetries are in the universal mind, like the symmetries
themselves. The universal mind is the mind common to all
universal numbers. ("universal" always taken in the
Church-Turing-Kleene-Post-Markov sense).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">The
"god" of the machine (the relatively locally finite being)
seems to be like a universal baby playing hide and seek with
itself.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">I
doubt we are alone in the probable apparent Cosmos that we can
observe, but we are not alone in Arithmetic, provably so if
you assume Digital Mechanism (a thesis equivalent with the
belief that consciousness is invariant for some recursive
permutations). </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">If
I suppose that the dynamics of the associations of atomic
numbers are internally motivated (that is, metabolism, a.k.a.,
organic mathematics),</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">As
long as you don't invoke explicitly actual infinities, or some
very special non-computable relations, the reversal
physics/biology consequences will follow. The carbon based
organicity, if necessary, has to be derived from arithmetic,
and if contingent, will not belong to physics but to geography
(meaning that our universe can implement life without carbon).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">What
within Life pre-supposes invariance? </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Here,
we need to assume that we remain conscious and well alive for
a digital brain transplant. See more in the sane04 paper
refered below, or in my last JPBMB papers refered below.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">What
within Life pre-supposes a stationarity such that recursive
permutations are meaningful arithmetically? </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Things
go in the different direction. It is "easy" to prove the
existence of the recursive permutation in arithmetic, and life
is derived from there.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">The
amazing thing is that life appears on different planes,
including non physical one, which predicts varieties of
possible after-life, without adding any assumption other than
arithmetic at the base level, and computationalism at the
meta-level (from which I start the reasoning).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">But
we don't need to die to test/refute the theory. We need only
to compare the mandatory physics which is "in the head" of any
universal number/machine ,with the empirical observations, and
thanks to the quantum weirdness, it fits up to now.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Let
me slightly more precise: The mathematical theory works for
any machine (or even a large collection of non-machine which
lives also in arithmetic) willing to bet on such relative
transplants, accept Church-Turing thesis, and thus believe in
the axioms given above (and taught in high school, although
not in such form).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">Does
Organic Mathematics reach it’s zenith in the genesis of
physical and mathematical poetry?</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">If
it works at all. I predicted in the 1970 that this would be
refuted well before 2000. </p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">We
are only at the beginning. I have underestimated the faith of
the Aristotelians. Not so much philosophers and scientists
seems aware that mechanism makes the invocation of a physical
universe in the attempt to solve or even formulate the
mind-body problem logically invalid. I thought for a large
part of my life that every scientists knew this since Plato!
My point is that the correct machine can't miss this when
introspecting itself (and remaining correct).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)">Just
some fleeting thoughts on the phenomenology of life during a
long winter's night in the cold Northland.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">I
hope my answer did not make you even colder. Take a good cup
of some hot tisane!</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Best,</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Bruno</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">(*)</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)"><span
style="text-decoration:underline"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html</a></span></p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Marchal
B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">Marchal
B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3,
368-381.</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica">PS
I have a provider problem, and I will be disconnected at least
up to the 17 March (hopefully not much later).</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Best
wishes to you, and all,</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Bruno</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18);min-height:22px"><br>
</p>
<br>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">_______________________________________________</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,115,18)">Fis
mailing list</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)"><span
style="text-decoration:underline"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es<span
style="line-height:normal"></span></a></span></p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190)"><span
style="text-decoration:underline"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<span
style="line-height:normal"></span></a></span></p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;color:rgb(0,102,190);min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/">http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/</a></p>
<p
style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:helvetica;min-height:14px"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>