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

From: Quentin Anciaux <allcolor.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:00:15 +0100

It's obvious now who is the troll...

Good idea to propose to return where you came from.

Quentin

Le Friday 07 March 2008 03:45:45 Brian Tenneson, vous avez écrit :

*> That's an appeal to authority. The discussion here has nothing to do
*

*> with my ideas, they are about Bruno's ideas, especially in Bruno's
*

*> answer to a question directed to him.
*

*>
*

*> I also find it odd that Bruno suggests asking specific questions but
*

*> in the link I posted to sci.logic, there were several specific
*

*> questions.
*

*>
*

*> Seems like it might just be easier to stick to sci.logic. Less
*

*> politics involved.
*

*>
*

*> How is that not trolling?
*

*>
*

*> On Mar 6, 1:32 pm, Günther Greindl <guenther.grei....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
*

*> > Brian,
*

*> >
*

*> > I can assure you that Bruno is the last on this list who would "troll".
*

*> > He is always very helpful and interested in serious discussion.
*

*> >
*

*> > I suggest you look at some of his papers before accusing him of trolling.
*

*> >
*

*> > Günther
*

*> >
*

*> > Brian Tenneson wrote:
*

*> > > I would appreciate that the trolling of my thread stop. Please take
*

*> > > your interesting but not obliviously (to me) related discussion to a
*

*> > > different thread. Thanks.
*

*> > >
*

*> > > On Mar 6, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
*

*> > >> Le 05-mars-08, à 16:11, <dfzone-everyth....domain.name.hidden> a écrit :
*

*> > >>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
*

*> > >>>> To tackle the math of that "physical bord", I use the Godel Lob
*

*> > >>>> Solovay modal logic of provability (known as G, or GL).
*

*> > >>>
*

*> > >>> Can you derive any known (or unknown) physical laws from your theory?
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> I am not sure we could ever *know* a physical law, but of course we
*

*> > >> can believe or bet on some physical theory, and make attempt to refute
*

*> > >> it experimentally.
*

*> > >> (Also it is not *my *theory, but the
*

*> > >> Pythagoras-Plato-Milinda-Descartes-Post-Church-Turing theory, that is,
*

*> > >> the very old mechanist theory just made precise through digitalness).
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> But, yes, that digital theory makes possible to derive
*

*> > >> verifiable/refutable propositions:
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> -existence of many "physical" histories/worlds, and some of their
*

*> > >> indirect effects.
*

*> > >> -verifiability of the many interference of the probabilities for any
*

*> > >> isolated observable when we look to "ourselves" at a level below the
*

*> > >> substitution level.
*

*> > >> -observable non locality in the same conditionS.
*

*> > >> - non booleanity of what the observables can describe (sort of Kochen
*

*> > >> Specker phenomenon)
*

*> > >> - It explains and predicts the first person (plural) indeterminacy (I
*

*> > >> don't know any simplest explanation of how indeterminacy can occur in
*

*> > >> a purely deterministic global context btw).
*

*> > >> (+ the first person expectation like the comp-suicide and its quantum
*

*> > >> suicide counterparts, etc.)
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> Of course, the problem is that, *a priori* the theory predicts too
*

*> > >> much: the white rabbits, like I sum up usually. But then I show that
*

*> > >> the incompleteness constraints (a one (double) diagonalization
*

*> > >> consequence of Church thesis) explains why the presence of white
*

*> > >> rabbits in that context is not obvious at all. If they remains, after
*

*> > >> the math is done, then the comp hyp is refuted.
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> The main advantage of this approach is that (unlike most physicalist
*

*> > >> program) the person cannot be eliminated, and the mind body problem
*

*> > >> cannot be put under the rug. Somehow my contribution consists in
*

*> > >> showing that the mind body problem, once we assume the
*

*> > >> computationalist thesis is two times more difficult than without,
*

*> > >> because it leads to a matter problem, under the form of the white
*

*> > >> rabbit problem, or, as called in this list, the (relative) measure
*

*> > >> problem.
*

*> > >> Do you know french? All this is explained in all details (perhaps with
*

*> > >> too much details) in *Conscience et
*

*> > >> Mécanisme":http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecani
*

*> > >>sme.html
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> My "result" (not *my* theory) is that evidences accumulate in favor of
*

*> > >> Plato's conception of matter (contra the primary matter of Aristotle).
*

*> > >> See my Plotinus paper for more precision on
*

*> > >> this:http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >>> or something that could be checked experimentally?
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> There is a possibility of stronger form of Bell's inequality. To
*

*> > >> progress on this open problem you have to study the arithmetical
*

*> > >> quantum logics I am describing in most of my papers. Eric Vandenbusch
*

*> > >> has solved the first open problem, but a lot remains. But my modest
*

*> > >> result is that with comp, we *have to* extract physics (the
*

*> > >> Schroedinger equation), not a proposal of a derivation, just a reason
*

*> > >> why we must do that, and a proposal of a path (the Loebian interview)
*

*> > >> for doing that.
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> What is your opinion about Everett? You can see my reasoning as an
*

*> > >> application of Everett's natural idea that a physicist obeys the
*

*> > >> physical laws in the mathematician/mathematics realm (or just
*

*> > >> arithmetics, combinators, etc.). I can understand that people in
*

*> > >> trouble with Everett can be in trouble with the comp hyp and its
*

*> > >> consequences.
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> My *type* of approach consists in just illustrating that Mechanism has
*

*> > >> empirically verifiable consequences.
*

*> > >> *My* theory of everything, deduced from the comp hyp is just
*

*> > >> (Robinson) arithmetic: all the rest emerge from internal points of
*

*> > >> view. They are similar (formally or 'relationaly') to Plotinus'
*

*> > >> hypostases.
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >> Bruno
*

*> > >>
*

*> > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
*

*>
*

*>
*

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:00:15 +0100

It's obvious now who is the troll...

Good idea to propose to return where you came from.

Quentin

Le Friday 07 March 2008 03:45:45 Brian Tenneson, vous avez écrit :

-- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Mar 07 2008 - 01:00:44 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*