From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:25:20 +0200

Hi John,

Le 10-août-06, à 17:52, <> a écrit :

> Bruno,
> 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.<

Mmh... OK, but comp is just the daughter of the old mechanist
philosophy, which appears already in "The question of Milinda", an old
Greco-buddhist text I love so much. Comp makes "mechanism" more
mathematical by its insistence on digitalness, and that indeed makes it
easier to reason mathematically. Then comp can help to tackle
mathematically "not-comp" (and that is how I found that all the G-G*
stuff remains correct and even complete for much weaker version of
"comp": it works for a vast class of "angels" (machine with actual
infinite reasoning abilities) and even "gods", for which G and G*
remains correct (but no more complete) and even on many supergods etc.
Only the big unameable one seems to escape the limitation of
self-reference, but only by loosing those self-reference abilities.
Here I am very close to Ennead V 6 where Plotinus criticizes the
attribution of thought to the "first God" (Plato's one or Good).

> 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
> involved!)
> 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
> 'anchored').
> Why not consult (and not just educate into YOUR ways) somebody with a
> different view (background thinking?) from the rigorous mathematical
> concepts?
> 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

It is NOTmy goal to prove that there is nothing else but numbers and
their relation.
But I do pretend indeed that ONCE we *assume* comp, then the existence
of something else is undecidable, and physics + psychology can be
explained from numbers, and, indeed that the comp constraints on
physics are such that they makes comp testable (refutable).

> 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).

Name-calling "per se" is worse than futile, it is a nuisance.
Unnecessary jargon slows progress and can even accelerate regress.

> I still wait impatiently for your 'roadmap' communications and
> preserve my
> mind to accept it as maybe proving me wrong.

As I told you many times, I am not sure you are wrong at all. The
difference between me and you is that you take into account the "human
limitations", and I take into account the vaster "machine limitations"
(those are "vaster" because I *assume* comp, and so humans are machine
and humans inherits machine's limitations). Such limitations are
mathematically non trivial (that's the Post Turing Markov Godel ...
discovery), and that is what I exploit.
The worst situation for you would be that I eventually prove comp
wrong, in which case I will have less reason to believe what you say
(having then no more clues on *our* limitations).

Thanks for telling me you are waiting impatiently the roadmap. I
progress. Don't expect too much in the sense that, as an ancient list
participant you will see I will not add things which I have not already
explain more than one time on this list (and in my papers). Actually I
will try to say less (that is the difficulty), and to take into account
the last conversations. And to recall acronym as people regularly asks
me out of line.

> 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.

This is hardly avoidable, at least until we clearly agree on our
disagreements (at least). Also I find those last conversations rather
interesting. They do clarify the disagreements indeed, and even begin
to separate in a better way terminological disagreements,
methodological disagreements, and plausibly deeper one.

> Grandmotherishly yours

;) Best regards,


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 Fri Aug 11 2006 - 05:27:26 PDT

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