Going beyond Russell paradox/ MOST DONT KNOW IT HAPPEN ;(

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 15:22:06 +0200

At 10:56 +0100 19/05/2002, june.shippey.domain.name.hidden wrote:

>Funny thing is that Pauli using Jung idea of Collective Unconscious as a
>kind of Shared Reality.

So perhaps there is an atom of truth in Pauli and Jung after all :)

>Which seem similar to the Philosophy (not the Math Logic) ...

The "Math Logic "is just the "Philosophy" made a bit more communicable.

>...that you give
>to Comp and QT.proving a proof within it own context is one thing
>however prove it with another is something else unless there are other
>links or clues?


>Now I am not saying that Pauli was right but I am showing that your idea
>mainly comes from this and possibly thorugh other books or thing you
>have taken in over the years.Now you say it not direclty about QT,
>however without this you would not have the link of Comp and Physics in
>the first place,so it must be about QT.In fact it would be hard without

Not at all, I make public the idea in 1963. I started from the question
"what is the life time of the amoeba?" well before I knew about chemistry
or even Plato. In 1971 I discover the little book by Nagel & Newman on Godel
theorem (Foyles for Books Charring Cross Road London, at a scholar trip)
which decides me to do the math and to translate the amoeba reasoning in
arithmetics. Only much later will I discover EPR and the weirdness of the
  There are some poetical strongness in both Young and Pauli which
I can appreciate, but with modern philophical rigor standard they quite miss
the "communicable" point.

>And with this is bring us back to the misconception about Mind and
>Reality QT question and the socalled Eigenstate-Value link which has
>never been proved either yet through this we assume lot or wrong

You mean we assume lot or wrong "propositions". We never assume "questions",
we just ask, hoping being clear. You miss me completely if you believe
my approach to mind has something to do with Copenhague. I mean my
approach is a mechanist one like Everett, Zeh, or Deutsch.
Mind has the type of Information, memory, communication. Neither
spirit nor substance, but organised bits.

>Ok let put it this way lets say that Quanta has not been discovered
>yetlike the begin of the 19th century and you have this idea of Comp
>Mind reality stuff well how did you come around to this way of thinking
>and how did you find the linkes with Reality Comp and Mind???

After Leeuwhenhoek, the inventor-discoverer of the microscope.
You can get the whole thing just by imagining yourself duplicable like
an amoeba or bacteria ...
Look at the uda you will see I don't use QT.
(by the way don't wait I write an english paper, consult the everything list
instead, but, like Wei Dai (everything list owner) said, you better study
Boolos 1993 book before, or read at
least the simpler "Forever Undecided" by Raymong Smullyan which
introduced recreatively the
modal logic G which is the basic tool for the arithmetical version of the
Universal dovetailer argument (auda). All references, including those
pointing to the everything mailing list, are in my URL below).

In a nutshell if we are machine (comp) we cannot know in which computation
we belong and to predict the (immediate) future we must extract a measure
on all computations going through the "actual" state. Church thesis makes
the notion of "all computations" machine independent.

>You can pretend that Mind and Comp knowledge is the same as today for
>arguments sake ;) but NOT the Physics parts!

Indeed and that is what I have done. Of course at the stage of
verification let me look at nature cause I would like to know if comp
is wrong.
What I say is that the dreamy aspect of reality is testable.
If mathematically comp gives QM then verification of QM leads to verification
of comp.

At 11:43 +0100 19/05/2002, june.shippey.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>Nowwhat has been missed is that Math dont mirror reality totally and
>istead is like what Duetsch calls a rule of thumb I call quick and dirty
>solutions which we have formed mainly from simple more primitive
>thoughts to survive.

Which reality?
Math = rules of Thumbs? No. Like Deutsch I aknowledge math reality
kicks back. There is an objective reality with math. Even in math,
*theories* are always simplification. Rule of thumbs are only tools for
seing more in the math realm, not the math ream itself.

You mean "physical reality"? That's a mystical concept I respect but cannot
use in my context where I ask, among other things, for an explanation of the
physicalness or the belief in physicalness.

In any case, there are no mathematical *theories* which mirror even just
arithmetical reality totally.

>Also I said there are other structure in physica dn math which go beyond
>other Logic structures and help solve problem that the presant stuff
>cant, you say no becuase the stuff now works, well that what they said
>in the past untill some one dar to break the mold.Bohm and Hegl logic
>get over certain Logic paradox Like Russell's simply by changing primary

*I* am the guy with the "new theory" here :-) Except it is not a
theory I *propose*, it is a theory I isolate from the cartesian comp
postulates. Z1* is not "my" theory, it is the theory by any sound
universal machine.
Z1* looks like Quantum Probability + terrible renormalisation problem.
I currently hope Hopf Algebra can help here ...I've perhaps make some piece
of progress in the puzzle but still too much with formal similarities
instead of conceptual clues ...

I should perhaps add that there are other pieces of evidence that physics
is part of pure number theory which are quite independent from the
self-referential approach I try to develop. I have not the references
here but I think about the work of Caroline Series, ...
Look also Dirk Kreimer's book on Knots and Feynman diagram.

You know D. Dennett insists (rightly imo) that an explanation of intelligence
should not rely on anything considered as intelligent. I think the same
for terms like "empirical", "physical" or "material". We should explain
those terms without any reference to empiry, physics or matter.

Plato did understand this point. Aristotle didn't, apparently.


Received on Tue May 21 2002 - 06:23:19 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST