;)
yes.
I know the "book" of the future is an archive like this, but something with
a table of contents and index would be pretty sweet. Without such, I have
trouble reading books.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM, nichomachus <Steven.Payne.Long.domain.name.hidden>
wrote:
>
> You mean, besides the archive of this list? ;)
>
> On May 1, 2:16 pm, "Brian Tenneson" <tenn....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been
> > collected? I would like to get my hands on such.
> >
> > --Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Marchal Bruno <marc....domain.name.hidden>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Günther,
> >
> > > >> I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the
> > > >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably)
> showing that:
> >
> > > >> - CRH implies COMP
> > > >> - COMP implies the negation of CRH
> > > >> - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH
> does
> > > >> not hold.
> >
> > > >Regarding:
> >
> > > >COMP implies the negation of CRH
> >
> > > >Is this also in your Sane 2004 paper? (then I missed that point) -
> if
> > > >not, where did you argue this?
> >
> > > It is not in the Sane 2004 paper. I have argue that COMP imples
> NOT-CRH online, in reply to Schmidhuber or someone defending the idea that
> the universe could be the product of a computer program.
> >
> > > Universality, Sigma_1 completeness, m-completness, creativity (in
> Post sense), all those equivalent notion makes sense only through
> complementary notion which are strictly sepaking more complex (non RE,
> productive, ...). The self-introspecting universal machine can hardly miss
> the inference of such "realities", and once she distinguishes the 1,
> 1-plural, 3-person points of view, she has to bet on the role of the non
> computable realities (even too much getting not just randomness, like QM,
> but an hard to compute set of anomalous stories (white rabbits, coherent but
> inconsistent dreams).
> >
> > > It's a bit like "understanding" (putting in a RE set) the (code of)
> the total computable functions, forces us to accept the existence of only
> partially computable functions, which sometimes (most of the time, see the
> thesis by Terwijn) have a non recursive domain.
> > > OK, the ontic part of a comp TOE can be no *more* than Sigma_1
> complete, but a non self-computable part of Arithmetical truth and
> analytical truth, is needed to get the *internal* measure, we can't even
> give a name to our first person plenitude and things like that.
> >
> > > The quantified "angel guardian" of a simple Lobian machine like PA,
> that is qG*, is itself Pi_1 in the Arithmetical Truth (see Boolos 1993
> book). The "God" of PA (already unameable by PA) is already NOT omniscient
> about PA's intelligible reality, if you follow the arithmetical
> interpretation of Plotinus I did propose.
> > > Perhaps this is why the Intelligible has been discovered (Plato)
> before the "ONE" (Plotin). It is far bigger. With comp you can restrict the
> ontic to the Universal Machine (the baby ONE), but its intelligible realm is
> well beyond its grasp.
> > > All this is related to the fact, already understood by Judson Webb,
> that comp is truly a vaccine against reductionist theories of the mind.
> >
> > > Have a good day,
> >
> > > Bruno
> >
> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/->Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 May 01 2008 - 18:31:16 PDT