Hi John,
Le 10-août-06, à 17:52, <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> 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
> NAMES.
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,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Aug 11 2006 - 05:27:26 PDT