Thanks for your gentle remarks. I will comment your last remark.
Le 27-juil.-07, à 02:59, John Mikes a écrit :
> 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.
If Church thesis is true, then there is something quite general, that
is not specifically human, in the computer science. Physics and nature
could be more human-oriented, although the lobian physics could as well
be the most universal physics capable of being conceived. In the next
posts I will have opportunity to (re)explain better (I hope) the
tremendous impact of Church thesis for the sciences (including
theology) in general,
Best,
Bruno
>
> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>
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 Jul 27 2007 - 09:15:23 PDT