Le 07-juil.-05, à 23:04, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> Bruno,
>
> After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to
> give you my reaction.
Thanks,
> It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your assumptions.
Certainly. In a mathematical theory the theorems are always "hidden" in
the axioms.
> I think you?ve even stated that before (using ?embedded? rather than
> ?hidden?), referring especially to comp. But I?d say that the trick
> is hidden in your assumptions about the universe or ?physical
> reality?. It is the assumption that ?physical reality? is limited to
> what we can imagine (?communicable physical laws?, with emphasis on
> communicable) and sense (?incommunicable physical knowledge?) it to
> be, i.e. in our conscious brains.
Be careful. At that stage I don't necessarily have conscious brain.
Actually I don't have brain, which are physical object and physics is
not yet derived from the relation between numbers.
> This is stated in your definition of ?Fundamental Physics? as being
> ?the correct-by-definition discourse about observable and verifiable
> anticipation of possible relatively evolving quantities and/or
> qualities.?
This is a very neutral definition of a "perfect physics". At that stage
the "correct physics" could still be even a Newtonian physics, like
"there is universe and objects in it obey such and such laws. At that
stage, that could be the correct physics. In the word "discourse" I
include its intended meaning. It can still be a physicalist discourse!
But then, through comp, physicalism will be jeopardized in a completely
testable way.
>
> So if A=?physical reality? and B=?consciousness?, then the assumption
> is A=B.
This is much to vague. You identify physics and discourse. Put I said
"correct discourse" and this includes the semantics (meaning) of the
discourse.
> It seems that the rest is extraneous because with A=B you?ve already
> practically reached your conclusion, even without comp.
You would be right if I was defining literally physics by the physical
discourse, but I define it by the correct discourse. It could be
"string theory" or "QM", etc. Then comp shows we have no choice, and
eventually the comp-physics is given by a precise things all lobian
machine can find by introspection. To test comp we can then compare
that "comp-physics" with the verified part of empirical physics. If the
comp-physics predicts Bell's inequality cannot be violated then comp
would be refutated, etc. This shows the rest is not extraneous.
> Am I missing something?
You have make a confusion between "discourse" and "correct (by
definition) discourse.
I know it is subtle (and many thanks to point to the fact that a
misunderstanding can occur already there). I would say that by
progressing in the UDA could help you to see this subtle point. When I
translate the UDA in the language of a Lobian machine, a similar
difficulty appears making at first sight believe that physics will just
be the "classical tautologies" (and that would make physics, with comp,
a purely geographico-historical matter, but then incompleteness entails
it is not so, we get sort of quantum tautologies.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Jul 09 2005 - 12:49:13 PDT