Bruno,
thanks for your detailed reply to my 6-09-07 post which I read only 7-26-09
for stupid reasons: I fell into a list with 100+ posts a day - many
political and very informative - and it took my time and mental capacity.
Also 2 other lists fleured up in topics I was involved strongly so when I
cut loose from the war-religion-Iraq and info about the whole world etc. -
political haranguing I merged into mind/life economy discussions.
I just could not discipline myself to read 'everything'. I read 'everything
else'.
Besides my response is wasting your time and activity, since I cannot
'think' in terms of true Goedel-Church or Everett etc. terms. A 'wave
colapse' is meaningless to me and I discard Schrodinger's cat's multiple
posibilities as "ignorantia mascarading as science". I do not speculate on
numbers. What do I speculate on? good question.
Maybe on the ways how to speculate.
Your remarks are vey helpful, I wish I can use them for myself.
I represented for a long time the epistemic paradox what you expressed as:
"The more a universal machine knows, the more she will be*relatively*
ignorant."
To know about more and more what we don't know.
And I saved your definition:
"To be a real scientist means to have the
courage to be enough clear so that you can be shown wrong .."
Which is the reason why I call my 'worldview' a "narrative", not a theory.
Substrate? physical reality? figments at a level (=conventional science) of
our mental journey. And I still wonder whether 'number' and 'comp' also
belong into the formulations of the (present) human mind accessible logical
level. I find 'nature' not subject to such, - this is my (science)
agnosticism.
John
On 6/10/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 09-juin-07, à 22:38, John Mikes a écrit :
>
>
> > Bruno;
> >
> > how about adding to Tom's reality survey the anti Aeistotelian:
> > Reality is what we don't see?
>
>
>
> OK. That is how we could sum up Platonism.
>
>
>
> > We "get" a partial impact of the 'total' and interpret it 1st person
> > as our 'reality', as it was said some time ago here (Brent?)
> > "perceived reality" what I really liked . Then came Colin with his
> > "reduced" (or what was his term?) solipsism: paraphrasing the
> > perceived reality into "OUR" world what we compoase of whatever we
> > got.
>
>
> OK. The difficulty is to keep track of the difference between first
> person singular (my pain, my joy, ...) and first person plural like the
> apparent wave collapse in Everett, if not the apparent schroedinger
> wave in Comp.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I know that you ask your oimniscient Loebian machine,
>
>
> Aaah... come on. It is hard to imagine something less omniscient and
> more modest than the simple lobian machine I interview, like PA whose
> knowledge is quite a tiny subset of yours.
> You are still talking like a *pregodelian* mechanist. Machine can no
> more be conceived as omniscient, just the complete contrary.
> And adding knowledge makes this worse. You can see consciousness
> evolution as a trip from G to G*, but that trip makes the gap between G
> and G* bigger. The more a universal machine knows, the more she will be
> *relatively* ignorant.
> With comp, knowledge is like a light in the dark, which makes you aware
> of the bigness of the explorable reality, and beyond.
>
>
>
> > but we, quotidien mortals,
>
>
> Even the disembodied PA has to believe-intuit its (relative) possible
> mortality or breakdown, and this forever (wrongly or correctly if it
> does well the difference between the "hypostases-person-views").
> When a universal machine knows that she is universal, then she has to
> be aware of its limitations soon or later.
> To be immortal, with comp, means to be able to die, forever ...
>
>
>
> > rely on our own stupidity about the world.
>
> ALL Universal Machine have to do that. This has been proved. Without
> stupidity: no intelligence. To be a real scientist means to have the
> courage to be enough clear so that you can be shown wrong ...
>
>
>
> > And in this department "perceived reality" is what we have and it is
> > close to Colin's personalized mini solipsism.
>
>
> Physical reality, probably the border of the "lobian mind" is a first
> person *plural* sum of all lobian dreams. There is no ultimate
> substrate. By being "plural" it should better not been called solipsism
> imo. (I'm assuming comp of course).
>
> 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 Thu Jul 26 2007 - 20:59:41 PDT