Re: The seven step series

Hi, Bruno

you know that I am in a different mindset, yet happy to read your train of thoughts. I consider a set a limited model of elements (and conclusions thereof are not applicable to wider domains) -

when I read your

"A set can be described in extension or in intension. "in extension" means that we give all elements of the set, enclosed in accolades."

I was really happy with the next sentence:

"When the set is not to complex (meaning big or infinite), we can use the "...".  - "

(I missed here the exemption of the 'infinite' "set", really a contradiction, to which the 'set' considerations cannot apply - OR can they?

if you have something on that...)

"Many" cannot be infinite (by MY definition).

I loved your words on QM, the (linear) extension of the figment physical world as described in reductionist physical sciences.

I also cannot wait for something more about your approach on

the "self reference" - the basis of physics? -

especially as to

'self' of what (who)? I hope the answer will not be "machine" or comp, because then I have to continue "and what is that?"

(in more than a utilitarian explanation of what it does). ('it?')

What boils down to my ignorance as to the originating and maintaining to ANY action we speak about. The 'theos' of a non-assumed and non-supernatural factor (system?) yet involved in conducting all we just find natural and proceeding.

You may substitute 'numbers' for such, but so far did not reply (to my satisfaction at least) WHAT those 'numbers' may be.

Sorry, I am not of the religious kind.

*

Maybe my error is in 'believeing' that a REALITY may exist and 'we' have only access to part of it.

Inventing for our comfort (the D. Bohmian idea) 'numbers' at the human level of pre-Platonian thinking. If 'reality' exists only by 'comp' or 'consequences' then I may be in a reversed error, due to brainwashing by in college imprinted  natural sciences - what I try to exceed yet it still sits there.

Our 'perceived reality' (ColinH) may also provide the numbers.

Now that sounds heretical enough in this thread. Forgive me.

*

Waiting for the self-reference, (who's?)

- with thanks so far

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@...> wrote:

Hi Johnathan,

On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:22, Johnathan Corgan wrote:

>
> Bruno,
>
> I think you were off to a good start with your planned series of posts
> about the seven step argument.  I believe your first installment was a
> discussion of set theory as one of the mathematical preliminaries to
> the
> actual argument.
>
> I am looking forward to your next installment.

Well, thanks. I am not sure Kim and Marty are there, but I can provide
a summary, and recall the motivation.

Marty, did you come back from holiday? Kim? still interested in
electronical summer's school on mathematics.

The goal of the seven step thread is to make clear the seventh step of
the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument). The purpose of the UDA is to
make clear that the mind-body problem (or the consciousness/reality
problem, or the first person/third person) problem is reduced, when we
do the computationalist assumption, to a pure body appearance or
discourse problem. UDA shows that if we assume the comp. hyp. then we
have to explain the appearance of matter from machine or number self-
reference only. The proof is constructive, it shows *how* the laws of
physics have to be extracted from self-reference.

Later, much later, I could explain, if everyone is OK with UDA, how we
can already extract from self-reference the general shape of physics,
so that we can already refute empirically, or confirm, the comp. hyp.
And it appears that the empirical quantum mechanics,  currently,
confirms the comp. hyp. Quantum mechanics confirms the partial
indetermination of the outcomes of our possible experiences, and the
"high non booleanity" of the propositions describing those outcomes".

The object of the "seventh step thread' consists in making the seventh
step accessible to non mathematicians. So we have to start from zero.
I have decided to start from elementary "naive" set theory, without
which we cannot do anything in math. I will avoid all special
mathematical symbols, and use instead words with capital letters.

We have not yet done a lot. So I can sum up, with the new "notations".

Definition. A set is just a "many" considered, when clear enough, as a
"one". So a set is just a collection of objects, and those objects are
called the element, or the member, of the set. If some x is an element
of some set A, we write x BELONGS-TO A, or (x BELONGS-TO A).
A set can be described in extension or in intension. "in extension"
means that we give all elements of the set, enclosed in accolades.
When the set is not to complex (meaning big or infinite), we can use
the "...". We can give name to a set, to ease or talk about that set,
like we do all the times in mathematics. Most of the set we will
consider are set of mathematical object, mainly numbers in the
beginning, and then set of ... sets.

Example-exercise:

1°) Let A be the set {0, 1, 2, 3}. ("A" is said to be a local name for
the set {0, 1, 2, 3}. And local means that such a name is used in a
local context. One paragraph later "A" could designed another, so be
careful). If "A" names {0, 1, 2, 3}, we will write "A = {0, 1, 2, 3}".

OK, so with A = {0, 1, 2, 3}. Which of the following propositions are
true

1) the number 2 is a member of A
2) the number 12 is a member of A
3) the number 12 is not a member of A
4) (3 BELONGS-TO A)
5) all members of A are numbers
6) one element of A is not a number
7) A can be defined in intension in the following way A = {x SUCH-THAT
x is a positive integer little than 4}

2°) Same questions with the set A = {0, 1, 2, 3, ... , 61, 62, 63}

This makes 14 exercises, which should be easy. I intent to keep it
that way. I continue after I get either answers (correct or wrong), or
questions.

Everyone is welcome to participate. Yet, I ask those who are quick to
respect those who are slow. To be slow in the beginning usually help
for being deep in the sequel.

Best,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/