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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:23:54 +0200

Le 11-avr.-07, ā 17:25, Max a écrit :

*>
*

*> Hi Folks,
*

Hi Max, Nice you remember us.

*>
*

*> After a decade of procrastination, I've finally finished writing up a
*

*> sequel to that paper that I wrote back in 1996 (Is "the theory of
*

*> everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?) that's been the
*

*> subject of so much interesting discussion in this group.
*

Are you aware of the critics I have made about it, and about

Schmidhuber approach? I am not sure you have taken those critics into

account in your new paper, although on some point it is indeed clearer.

Oh, I see you are mistaken about Godel's theorem (hope you don't mind

the typical frankness in our discussion, mainly for reason of being

short). Perhaps this will be an opportunity to have a straight

discussion, and to help the go beyond the usual gap between logicians,

which in my opinion have developed the right tools, and the physicists,

which in general have kept the right (scientific realist) motivations.

*> It's entitled "The Mathematical Universe", and you'll find it at
*

*> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646 and
*

*> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.html
*

*> - I'd very much appreciate any comments that you may have.
*

I will.

*>
*

*> The purpose of this paper is both to clarify what I mean by the Level
*

*> IV Multiverse and to further explore various implications, so it has
*

*> lots of discussion of stuff like the simulation argument, the relation
*

*> to Schmidhuber's ideas, Gödel incompleteness and Church-Turing
*

*> incomputability.
*

Schmidhuber leaves the list more than 5 years ago without answering

questions adressed to him. I hope you will be more serious. Apparently

you are not aware of my works, which I have explained more than once in

this list, and has been the subject of my PhD thesis in France a long

time ago (and this 20 years after having published the results). It is

not entirely your fault because I have not yet send my papers to the

arXiv.org or international journal. I don't submit more than one paper

every 500 years (g), and you are lucky because I have just do this

recently and my paper has been accepted for the cie 2007:

http://www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/~pmt6sbc/cie07.html (nice if you could

come, but it is high level logic).

All my other papers was ordered by kind people with serious motivation

in my results or my approach (similar to ideas discussed in this list,

and indeed close (but quite different) of yours. You can find most of

those papers in my url below. Alas it does not contain my last two

papers (for copyright reason). One of the main result is that "if I am

a machine" then the observable universe cannot be described by a

machine: the laws of physics have to emerge from the math of cognition

(not of human cognition but of universal machine introspection). The

other result is a "direct" partial extraction of the physical laws by

the interview of an ideally self-referentially correct universal

machine, and evidences adds up that indeed there is a quantum computer

exploitable in "real time" in the neighborhood of almost all classical

universal machines. This shows there is plausibly a mathematical

justification of the qubits from the bits. So the

Everett-Graham-Deutsch-Zurek qubit from bit transformation admits a

reciprocal. This is going in your direction (classical platonist

mathematicalism), but like with Penrose, the reasons differ.

*> Please let me apologize in advance for the fact that
*

*> Sections III, IV and the appendix of this paper are quite technical,
*

*> so if you're among the 99.99% who don't have a Ph.D. in theoretical
*

*> physics, perhaps skip those sections. I've added links to more
*

*> accessible papers touching on some of these issues at
*

*> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.html, and I'll try to write
*

*> something less obtuse soon.
*

*>
*

*> Finally, if you discover a good time stretching device, please let me
*

*> know! Although I'm embarrassed that I haven't found the time to follow
*

*> and participate in the fascinating discussions in this group, the fact
*

*> that there's such interest has inspired and motivated me to continue
*

*> pursuing these ideas despite the discouragement from mainstream
*

*> academia. So thanks for the encouragement!
*

Thanks to you, Max. I appreciate very much your effort to explain

Everett. I really love your paper with Wheeler. And I appreciate you

have the courage you show in tackling very difficult questions which

are indeed a little bit out of the mainstream fashion. I have myself

got trouble after publishing the quantum suicide in 1988, like I got

problem in the seventies with the more general "computationist

suicide". You can consider my work as a generalisation of Everett's

(but see also Otto Rossler's endophysics) embedding of the subject (the

physicist) in the physical world (quantum mechanics), indeed I embed

the mathematician in arithmetic; or you can see it as a detailed

reconstruction of Penrose's argument, with similar conclusions

(although Penrose is deadly wrong on Godel). In my Siena paper, I show

that the interview of the self-referentially correct machine (I call

them Lobian in my thesis, papers and in this list) provides a cute,

transparent, purely arithmetical (but empirically testable),

interpretation of Plotinus's theology (including is Plato-Aristotelian

theory of matter: it is this one which makes the theory testable). This

shows also that once we assume the computationalist hypothesis (in the

form "I am a machine", not in the form the physical universe is a

machine), the theory of everything, whatever it is, splits into a

scientifically communicable part, and a scientifically not communicable

part, and this shows Plotinus is right in his critics of Aristotelian

theology. To be sure the machine does address some similar critics to

Plotinus.

Unfortunately I don't have find a way for stretching time, and I am

myself a bit busy. I will read your sequel at ease, and let you know my

comments. Hope you will be able to stretch time a bit by yourself so

that we will be able to discuss and clarify possible misunderstandings.

In the meantime you can read both the Universal Dovetailer Argument,

and an introduction to the Lobian interview in my paper:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/

SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

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?hl=en

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

Received on Fri Apr 13 2007 - 06:24:07 PDT

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:23:54 +0200

Le 11-avr.-07, ā 17:25, Max a écrit :

Hi Max, Nice you remember us.

Are you aware of the critics I have made about it, and about

Schmidhuber approach? I am not sure you have taken those critics into

account in your new paper, although on some point it is indeed clearer.

Oh, I see you are mistaken about Godel's theorem (hope you don't mind

the typical frankness in our discussion, mainly for reason of being

short). Perhaps this will be an opportunity to have a straight

discussion, and to help the go beyond the usual gap between logicians,

which in my opinion have developed the right tools, and the physicists,

which in general have kept the right (scientific realist) motivations.

I will.

Schmidhuber leaves the list more than 5 years ago without answering

questions adressed to him. I hope you will be more serious. Apparently

you are not aware of my works, which I have explained more than once in

this list, and has been the subject of my PhD thesis in France a long

time ago (and this 20 years after having published the results). It is

not entirely your fault because I have not yet send my papers to the

arXiv.org or international journal. I don't submit more than one paper

every 500 years (g), and you are lucky because I have just do this

recently and my paper has been accepted for the cie 2007:

http://www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/~pmt6sbc/cie07.html (nice if you could

come, but it is high level logic).

All my other papers was ordered by kind people with serious motivation

in my results or my approach (similar to ideas discussed in this list,

and indeed close (but quite different) of yours. You can find most of

those papers in my url below. Alas it does not contain my last two

papers (for copyright reason). One of the main result is that "if I am

a machine" then the observable universe cannot be described by a

machine: the laws of physics have to emerge from the math of cognition

(not of human cognition but of universal machine introspection). The

other result is a "direct" partial extraction of the physical laws by

the interview of an ideally self-referentially correct universal

machine, and evidences adds up that indeed there is a quantum computer

exploitable in "real time" in the neighborhood of almost all classical

universal machines. This shows there is plausibly a mathematical

justification of the qubits from the bits. So the

Everett-Graham-Deutsch-Zurek qubit from bit transformation admits a

reciprocal. This is going in your direction (classical platonist

mathematicalism), but like with Penrose, the reasons differ.

Thanks to you, Max. I appreciate very much your effort to explain

Everett. I really love your paper with Wheeler. And I appreciate you

have the courage you show in tackling very difficult questions which

are indeed a little bit out of the mainstream fashion. I have myself

got trouble after publishing the quantum suicide in 1988, like I got

problem in the seventies with the more general "computationist

suicide". You can consider my work as a generalisation of Everett's

(but see also Otto Rossler's endophysics) embedding of the subject (the

physicist) in the physical world (quantum mechanics), indeed I embed

the mathematician in arithmetic; or you can see it as a detailed

reconstruction of Penrose's argument, with similar conclusions

(although Penrose is deadly wrong on Godel). In my Siena paper, I show

that the interview of the self-referentially correct machine (I call

them Lobian in my thesis, papers and in this list) provides a cute,

transparent, purely arithmetical (but empirically testable),

interpretation of Plotinus's theology (including is Plato-Aristotelian

theory of matter: it is this one which makes the theory testable). This

shows also that once we assume the computationalist hypothesis (in the

form "I am a machine", not in the form the physical universe is a

machine), the theory of everything, whatever it is, splits into a

scientifically communicable part, and a scientifically not communicable

part, and this shows Plotinus is right in his critics of Aristotelian

theology. To be sure the machine does address some similar critics to

Plotinus.

Unfortunately I don't have find a way for stretching time, and I am

myself a bit busy. I will read your sequel at ease, and let you know my

comments. Hope you will be able to stretch time a bit by yourself so

that we will be able to discuss and clarify possible misunderstandings.

In the meantime you can read both the Universal Dovetailer Argument,

and an introduction to the Lobian interview in my paper:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/

SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

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?hl=en

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

Received on Fri Apr 13 2007 - 06:24:07 PDT

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