Le 22-août-05, à 00:21, kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> By now you should have understood that I will not be taunted, so no
> use in trying. I do not pretend anything. What I
> have told you and maintain is that I can sketch an argument that
> shows that your YD is incompatible with QM being the
> correct physics of the world and I will do so as soon as you admit
> that this will invalidate ALL your thesis (not just the
> part of it you feel like conceding). This was my proposal all along
> and I have not changed it. So there is no point in
> challenging me in these terms. I made clear already.
I thought you said you get a proof that YD is false. (Confirmed by my
looking at your posts).
This would have invalidate the Universal Dovetailer Argument (but not
its arithmetical translation as I explained before).
Now you are saying that YD is just inconsistent with QM. This is a far
much weaker statement, which would not refute anything at all. On the
contrary, given that my UDA-point says that comp entails verifiable
physical statements (a whole comp-phys). And for me it is still an open
problem if comp-phys is compatible with QM or not, or is even equal to
QM or not.
Actually, if you read my thesis you will see that I arrive at a point
where I conclude that comp (thus YD) seems to be in contradiction with
QM, because it gives a priori much more relative computational
continuations than QM (the white rabbit problem), but then I explain
that computer science and incompleteness phenomena force us to add many
nuances, and this is what has lead me to make a complete translation
of UDA in arithmetic.
So, this means you could just be *in advance* of my thesis! That would
still be very interesting of course, so, please make your point.
Ah yes you want to make it only if it demolishes the whole of a thesis
that you admitted not having read (I don't understand at all why you
don't want to give a (perhaps interesting) argument unless it refutes a
thesis that you admitted not having read).
Please make your point, we can still discussed its impact after, isn't
it?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Aug 22 2005 - 10:09:38 PDT