Le 19-août-05, à 18:13, kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> [GK]
> I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think those
> would actually invalidate the premise. If you ran into
> a copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something is
> amiss in your world!
OK if it is a temporary interdiction. The YD will entail that we are
duplicable in a weak sense (which does not contravene the no-cloning
theorem (but here I anticipate the reasoning)).
You pretend YD is false, show the proof.
> [GK]
> What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false.
> That allows me to dismiss anything you say based
> on that premise.
Of course. But of course, everything I say from CT and AR alone will
survive. I hope you see this clearly.
> That is actually not general at all but extremely specific. From here
> on I will make no comment on
> any sentence you preface with "But from COMP (or YD) I can prove
> that..." . Nothing personal, please understand.
Sure. Except that in a second round (the "interview" of the lobian
machine) I translate "comp" in arithmetic, and I extract *a* physics
from that COMP. To understand that translation YD is very useful, but
no more. Then if the physics that is extracted from the arithmetical
COMP corresponds to the empirical physics, your proof of the falsity of
the YD would show that a falsity has helped in discovering the origin
of the physical laws. Funny but not entirely impossible. Except that,
without wanting to discourage you in advance, it is very hard for me to
believe you have find a proof or an argument showing comp is wrong. But
that makes me just more curious.
> Now, although 99,99999999 % of the mathematician > are platonist
> during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the
>> week-end!).
> >
> > [GK]
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> Hope you are not serious!
>
> [GK]
> Sorry! "Ditto" over here in the States is used as a note of agreement.
I take it like that.
You are telling me you are platonist the week and not platonist the
week-end?
Or "ditto" means you agree with *me*, I guess.
> [GK]
> In that case enjoy the prize! If you derived the laws of physics from
> CT and AR alone you surely deserve the recognition you
> will enjoy because that is a remarkable accomplishment!
> Congratulations!
But there is a derivation of a physics from CT and AR. Just to
understand *that* intuitively you need YD. I have done two things the
universal dovetailer argument (UDA) which shows that YD + CT + AR
entails that physics emerges necessary from a web of machine dreams
(say, dream being entirely defined in term of computer science or
number theory).
But then in the second part, called sometime the arithmetical universal
dovetailer argument (AUDA), or more simply the "interview of the lobian
machine", I translate (UDA) in arithmetic (because comp makes it
possible and necessary). YD disappears or is translated in arithmetic
(by Godel-like devices). The derivation of physics is purely
mathematical of course, I am not a magician extracting the galaxies
from someone saying "yes" to a doctor.
It looks like it disappoints you, but there is two parts in my work:
UDA: an argument that YD + CT + AR implies physics is necessarily a
branch of computer science.
AUDA: a translation of the argument in arithmetic, with the (modest)
result that the logic of the observable proposition is given by the
composition of three mathematical transformations operating on a
"well-known" modal logic (G). And it already looks enough like some
quantum logics to encourage further research. Alas the math are not
easy and not well known.
> I feel like saying: my work here is done!
But it is done. Yes of course.And if YD is false (which I doubt), UDA
will be dead, ok, but it will make the AUDA much more enigmatic!
> Without even trying I have let you relinquish one of your hypothesis!
It looks your goal is shooting me completely: the UDA and AUDA!
I have absolutely no worry about YD, but it is a logical fact you ask
me to make clear: even if that were true (that YD is false), that would
kill one halve only, the one some people ask me sometimes to drop out,
but I prefer to keep it for preventing positivistic interpretation of
machine's discourses.
> [GK]
> Well, YD is so secondary to your purposes, why do you care?
Because many people take YD for granted, already. Because it makes the
comp-physics obligatory making the whole of comp testable. YD is
secondary for the extraction of physics, but it is necessary for having
an understanding why it is a derivation of physics. I am anormaly
patient, you could understand this by reading the UDA, and the
beginning of the AUDA.
> I am almost sure you would approve my version but I am not
> putting it down until you give me a good reason to do it!!!
Because that would kill the first half of my PhD thesis and makes the
second part enigmatic.
But many in this list find YD plausible and if you can show it false,
please do it.
> I am sorry, Bruno, but I see no glory in disappointing a few computer
> scientists(and their grand-mothers)
Only?
> since, you and I agree that their physics stinks! You are the one
> that claims to derive the true physics
Assuming comp in UDA, and assuming COMP (as I wrote it sometimes) for
the translation of comp in the language of a lobian machine
(arithmetic, if you want). The result of the transformation is just a
purely mathematical formula (sorry!).
> so you are the one I would like to shoot down! If you really only need
> CT and AR I really have no other choice but to worship at your altar
> (;-) since I really don't want to have to go through your proof and I
> am no match for CT or AR. It is a pity because it is a cute little
> argument I have up my sleeve ....
My senses detect some arrogance here. Do you mean you would not give
the argument once you realize that strictly speaking it could only
wound my work without killing it completely? You could have first take
a look at the table of content.
Either you give the argument in the next post, or I will give you the
everything-list-prize of arrogance Godfray.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Aug 20 2005 - 13:46:35 PDT