Re: a description of you + a description of billiard ball can bruise you?

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:04:29 +0200

Le 01-juin-05, à 17:24, scerir a écrit :

> Bruno Marchal:
> To be clear I have only proved that IF COMP is taken seriously enough
> THEN the appearance of a "pre-existing physical world", including its
> stability, lawfulness ... MUST BE derivable from the relation between
> numbers. This is done. Then I got results confirming in part that comp
> can be true, in proving that the logic of physical propositions is not
> boolean and even has a quantum smelling (to be short).
>
>
> Sorry for my naiveté. Has the above something to
> do with the quotation below? I mean, what is the
> main difference?
>
> "The only laws of matter are those
> which our minds must fabricate,
> and the only laws of mind
> are fabricated for it by matter."
> - James Clerk Maxwell


It is perhaps not so different. The difference is perhaps that my
proposition has been the object of a proof, where Maxwell looks like a
poem. Also Maxwell's statement looks circular, he says that minds
fabricate matter and matter fabricate minds, where I say that if we
take comp seriously then we are lead to: numbers fabricate mind which
fabricate matter, and then (but only then) matter fabricate mind which
fabricate matter etc. I solve the logical initial condition problem.

Put it in another way it is like Maxwell would say that the factorial
function is given by the rule

Factorial(n) = n*factorial(n-1)

Where I say:

factorial(n) = IF n = 0 THEN 1, ELSE (but only else) n*factorial(n-1).

To sum up very shortly: I say numbers fabricate the mind matter
dissociation, including all tergiversation's

To sum up less shortly: I say numbers fabricate the web of numbers
dreams, which are just the possible computations as seen from some
internal (first person) view. Then incompleteness constraints can
justify how and why stable and coherent computations emerges which
make *us* capable of sharing partially some deep dream (making
solipsism false as Stephen rightly insist it should be so). (or
perhaps *not* but I would take that as a refutation of comp)

Regards,

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Jun 01 2005 - 12:14:25 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST