RE: A nerw idea to play with

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 14:38:31 +0100

QM must be incomplete only if there is an objective reality. As there is no
objective reality, it need not be incomplete.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 11:57 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: A nerw idea to play with
>
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
> >I agree, but it [QM] is must be still considered as an incomplete
> >theory, such
> >as Newton's gravitation. So the point is that computing Schroedinger
> >equation for a brain does not obviously insure that the computation is
> >actually thinking. Only the use of a computable TOE would escape this
> >issue.
>
> You are absolutely right, although my feeling (through and
> not-through comp) is that QM is essentially correct, as is
> her classical part.
>
> You are right. Only a TOE would escape the issue.
> But with comp, alas, we can prove that there are no computable TOE.
>
>
> >>To use the phenomenological quantum weirdness as a argument against
> >>comp will not work with me because I take the QUANTUM as the most
> >>convincing (a posteriori, I confess) confirmation of the DIGITAL
> ultimate
> >>nature of reality.
> >>Of course a confirmation is not a proof, and computerland would
> >>be a sad country if all machines are betting comp :-)
> >>
> >>Bruno
> >
> >Sure! :-)
> >I still have the impression that in the absence of a TOE, you are not
> >allowed to identify any (practical or "theoretical") computation with any
> >physical phenomenon, including the thought...and again even if it were
> >true, the problem of the emergence of consciousness would not be easier.
>
>
> But with comp there is a TOE ! I show that explicitly in my thesis.
> The TOE is Arithmetical/informatical Truth.
>
> That that is not computable follows from *Goedel* (or by typical
> diagonalisations).
>
> To paraphrase Kronecker:
>
> God creates the natural numbers,
> Everything else is dreamed by natural numbers.
>
> What is a dream ? A ``collection" of relative computational states of a
> sufficiently reflexive universal machine.
>
> What is Physical Reality ? It is the sharable and inferable (provable
> and consistent) part of the *dreams* of all self-referentially correct
> sufficiently reflexive universal machine.
>
> What is Geographical Reality ? The same as physical reality entangled
> with a bunch of probably very long (deep) *stories*.
>
> What is consciousness ? The proposition 'I am conscious" is, among
> other propositions, a first-person perspective of an unconscious
> (instinctive) inference of a true but unprovable proposition
> concerning the concistency of a self-referentially correct
> sufficiently reflexive universal machine.
> You can see it as an inference of self-concistency.
> It is always an interrogative "self-concistency", but by infering it
> instinctively and continuously for a time, there is a tendency to be
> a little blase about it.
>
> You can also interpret the ``self-consistency proposition" as a
> representation of our most immediate accessible possible *worlds*.
>
> Bruno
Received on Wed Sep 15 1999 - 06:51:55 PDT