Re: briefly wading back into the fray

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:45:21 +0100

On 07 Feb 2009, at 19:05, Jack Mallah wrote:

> Bruno is still pushing his crackpot UDA.

What is it that you (still) don't understand? (good idea to resume UDA
again, and so the question is asked also to the newbies).
Please help yourself by printing the PDF slide

1) The (re)definition of computationalism, or digital mechanism, in
the form of "yes doctor" + Church thesis? Note that the list has
convince me to suppress the "arithmetical realism" hypothesis, because
it is contained in the "Church thesis", and some people put to much
metaphyical baggage in the word "realism". (step 1).

2) The first person/third person distinction (like Schmidhuber, who
leaves the list after complaining this distinction made no sense)? Is
it the invariance of the first person experience for the addition of
third person delays which makes problem? (step 2)

3) have you a problem with the first person indeterminacy in self-
duplication experience (my main old contribution) like Chalmers, who
lives the room at this step when I explained UDA at the ASSC meeting
in Brussels many years ago? (step 3)

4) The invariance of any method for quantifying first person
indeterminacy with respect to the addition of asymmetrical delays?
(step 4)

5) The same in experiences where the third person "original" is not
annihilated? (step 5)

6) The same in experiences where the reconstitution, although still
"physical" are virtual (step 6).

Most people have no problem up to here. Sometimes Brent Meeker
complains that I should make clearer that the environment can still
play some role at this stage, but this is part of my definition of
"generalized brain".

  7) So, is it in the seventh step: where you are in front of a
concrete never ending running of a Universal Dovetailer? Do you have
a problem with the idea of universal dovetailing? (step 7)

> I could tell you what's wrong with his MGA, ....

8) Are you acknowledging you get the UDA (1...7)? It is just UDA_8 you
have some trouble with? Then it means you have made some progress
since our last conversation. I could stop here, because MGA can be
eliminated with some Occam Razor. MGA is really the little cerise on
the top of the cake. I do have been myself a bit annoyed by its
subtle taste and difficulty until I discovered recently, through
conversation with patient (and polite) people in the list, that the
difficulties reside more in a too quick understanding of the seventh
step than in MGA per se. Many are not always clear about the
distinction between what is a computation (in Platonia), and a
description of a computation (in platonia). The progress is that I
have now a version of MGA in two steps: MGA1 and MGA2. Forget MGA3: it
is a product of my non awareness that the seventh step has to be
exposed with more caution, especially to non-mathematician. This is
what I am planning to do, with the help of Kim, and this includes to
start the math (needed here) from scratch. The hope is to make the
ending of the UDA, and the beginning of the AUDA, more available to a
wider audience.

Concerning your paper I have nothing to add that has not been already
told or asked to you. Obviously it does not take into account the
Universal Dovetailer Argument.

I see you have make some progress on the subject (but not yet on
diplomacy, unless your "crackpot" wording is just an affectionate
mark: I could be OK with that. Well we will see).

Welcome back to the list Jacques,


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Feb 09 2009 - 11:45:32 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST