- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:45:25 +0100

Le 29-déc.-06, à 16:41, Jef Allbright a écrit :

*>
*

*> Bruno -
*

*>
*

*> It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level
*

*> epistemology.
*

It is possible. Note that in general those who appreciates the

hypotheses I build on, does not like so much the conclusion, and vice

versa, those who like the conclusion does not like the way I got them

...

*>
*

*> But I don't know much about your "comp" so I'll begin reading.
*

"Comp" is the old "mechanist philosophy" (Question to Milinda, Plato,

Descartes, Hobbes) revisited after the "creative explosion": the

discovery of the universal "turing" machine and the computer

theoretical laws they obey.

I propose also a reasoning (the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA))

showing that, contrary to a widespread belief (since the closure of

Plato Academy in 525 after JC), digital mechanism is epistemologically

incompatible with the belief that the mind emerges from some primary

substantial matter, but on the contrary the appearances of matter

emerges globally from an internal view of the number theoretical

reality. The UDA necessitates only a passive understanding of Church

thesis. Then I translate UDA in the language of a Universal Machine,

and thanks to the work of Post, Markov, Godel, Boolos, Goldblatt,

Visser etc. I show constructively how to derive the particular case of

"certainties" on the observation results (= more or less the

"probability one" bearing on our computational extensions) and I have

shown that those "probability one" gives arithmetical interpretation of

some quantum logic. I am working now to show why "nature" look like a

*quantum* computer in our immediate accessible neighborhood. I 'm stuck

on some mathematical difficulties and the progress are slow.

*>
*

*>> > With increasing context of self-awareness, subjective values >
*

*>> increasingly resemble principles of the physical universe.
*

*>> Apparently you are even more optimistic than me. I just wish you are
*

*>> correct here. It is fuzzy because the term "resemble" is fuzzy.
*

*>
*

*> Yes, I was writing in broad strokes, just to give you the pattern, but
*

*> not the detail that has been mentioned earlier. Humanity certainly
*

*> could be within an evolutionary cul de sac.
*

Yes.

*>
*

*> <snip>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>>> Since all events are the result of interactions following
*

*>> the laws of the physical universe,
*

*>> Hmmm... It is out of topic, but I don't believe this at all. Better I
*

*>> can show to you that if "I" (or "You") are turing-emulable, then all
*

*>> events, including the apparition and the development of the physical
*

*>> laws are the result of the relation between numbers.
*

*>
*

*> For the sake of my argument I might better have said that all
*

*> interactions seem to follow a consistent set of rules (which we see as
*

*> the laws of the physical universe. It seems that you have some theory
*

*> of a more fundamental layer having to do with numbers.
*

Yes. I have many reasons to believe the laws of physics emerges from

the laws of numbers. My basic belief in this relies on computer

science/ cognitive science and quantum mechanics. But since the last

years I got independent evidences for this from knot theory, prime

number theory, integer partition theory. What is funny (and still

mysterious but less and less when looking in the details) is the

presence of the number 24 (or of its divisors) each time a deep

relation appears between number theory and physics. I will send an easy

illustration soon or later.

Happy 2007,

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?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Mon Jan 01 2007 - 09:45:51 PST

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:45:25 +0100

Le 29-déc.-06, à 16:41, Jef Allbright a écrit :

It is possible. Note that in general those who appreciates the

hypotheses I build on, does not like so much the conclusion, and vice

versa, those who like the conclusion does not like the way I got them

...

"Comp" is the old "mechanist philosophy" (Question to Milinda, Plato,

Descartes, Hobbes) revisited after the "creative explosion": the

discovery of the universal "turing" machine and the computer

theoretical laws they obey.

I propose also a reasoning (the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA))

showing that, contrary to a widespread belief (since the closure of

Plato Academy in 525 after JC), digital mechanism is epistemologically

incompatible with the belief that the mind emerges from some primary

substantial matter, but on the contrary the appearances of matter

emerges globally from an internal view of the number theoretical

reality. The UDA necessitates only a passive understanding of Church

thesis. Then I translate UDA in the language of a Universal Machine,

and thanks to the work of Post, Markov, Godel, Boolos, Goldblatt,

Visser etc. I show constructively how to derive the particular case of

"certainties" on the observation results (= more or less the

"probability one" bearing on our computational extensions) and I have

shown that those "probability one" gives arithmetical interpretation of

some quantum logic. I am working now to show why "nature" look like a

*quantum* computer in our immediate accessible neighborhood. I 'm stuck

on some mathematical difficulties and the progress are slow.

Yes.

Yes. I have many reasons to believe the laws of physics emerges from

the laws of numbers. My basic belief in this relies on computer

science/ cognitive science and quantum mechanics. But since the last

years I got independent evidences for this from knot theory, prime

number theory, integer partition theory. What is funny (and still

mysterious but less and less when looking in the details) is the

presence of the number 24 (or of its divisors) each time a deep

relation appears between number theory and physics. I will send an easy

illustration soon or later.

Happy 2007,

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?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Mon Jan 01 2007 - 09:45:51 PST

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