From: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:52:14 -0400


I liked what George Levy wrote (19 July 2006):

> As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything
> using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP
> which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.<
A bit lesser the continuation:
> I came up independently with my own concept involving a
> generalization of relativity to information theory ( my background is
> engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points.
> Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my
> ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it
> feels right.<
because engineering and physics (as we know them from past times) are also
based on mathematical logic - (if not on straightforward math!) and that
puts George in a similar basket with you (No peiorative tone intended, or
To your advice to seek a mathematician (as gossip has it: Einstein relied on
the math-help of Goedel): it would serve to "anchor" George into YOUR basket
(sorry George, I believe you are way above such fallibilities as to be
Why not consult (and not just educate into YOUR ways) somebody with a
different view (background thinking?) from the rigorous mathematical
I still believe that there is more than just 'numbers' and processes in the
existence with different basis than just comp.

I don't believe you can "PROVE" that there is nothing else but
"math-numbers-comp", unless you call "all other possibilities" with such
NAMES. Name-calling is futile. "I can arrive there in a 'little zillion'
steps" is fairy tale - without at least some details on the 'HOWs'. (Old
cliche: the validity of a legal argument).

I still wait impatiently for your 'roadmap' communications and preserve my
mind to accept it as maybe proving me wrong. I hope I will not miss them in
the maze of posts now swarming this list - really beyond my reading
capabilities. I would love to watch (and find) a 'subject' preserved for
YOUR line eg as: "ROADMAP" with nobody just clicking 'Reply' to make posts
as the same subject 350 times.

Grandmotherishly yours

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:59 AM
You should perhaps try to find a mathematician in your neighborhood for
helping you to formalize a bit your approach. I can give you book
advices on information theory if you are interested. Unfortunately the
relation between information theory and logic are not so easy. I know
that Abramski works on it, and Devlin wrote a book on information in
some logician sense (this is not yet standard), you could search
"Devlin" on Amazon for the reference.
In this setting quantum information theory is also hard to avoid. There
are many good books too.
<- Skipped: Copied above ->
> I believe that what you are saying is right, however I am having
> some trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would
> help if you outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the
> roadmap without having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at
> every turn even though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am
> sure. For example you could use several levels of explanation: a first
> level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second
> level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to
> your colleagues.
Like I just said to Stathis, I have some difficulties. But this is
really because I want that roadmap post to be comprehensible by the

Thanks for being patient,


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Aug 10 2006 - 12:17:39 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST