Le 23-sept.-05, à 16:29, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
> Hi Bruno:
>
> At 06:04 AM 9/23/2005, you wrote:
>
>> Le 22-sept.-05, à 18:12, John M a écrit :
>
> <John>
>
>>> Bruno:
>>>
>>> according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
>>> is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"?
>
> <Bruno>
>
>> The problem, for me, is with the "T" (both in TOE and TON).
>> I cannot judge. Hal's talk is still too much vague for me.
>> I appreciate and perhaps share soime intuitions, though.I certainly
>> appreciate the role of logical incompleteness.
>
>
> Below I have tried to compact my model to see if it helps:
It does not really help. We have already discuss this. If you want to
communicate to other you need to find a language others can understand.
Or you should be able to "represent" what you want to say in some
theory by others. I have not yet the slightest clue of what you ask us
to take as primitive and what you derive from it, nor if what you do
can help to solve the measure problem, and so one.
>
> There are three levels of existence in the model:
>
> 1) The list of all possible aspects of objects and ideas [and its
> representative one to one correspondence with the natural numbers].
In our context all those terms have no obvious interpretation. What is
an object, what is an idea? What are the assumption making it possible
to build a correspondence with the natural numbers. What do you mean
by "possible aspect". Is aspect a first or a third person notion.
>
> The next levels contain parsings of this list as objects or the
> descriptions of such parsings.
>
> 2) The [Nothing:All] parsing of the list. [As a pair of resulting
> objects and at this level due to the unavoidability of there being
> such objects.]
Please refer to places where you define all those terms. Your posts
does not help.
>
> 3) The descriptions of all the possible parsings of the list [kernels]
> [including level 2] all of which are placed in the All [along with the
> power set based representation as a one to one correspondence with the
> real numbers] and none of which are placed in the Nothing.
?
>
> The incompleteness of the Nothing produces a dynamic at levels 2 and 3.
Proving machines or theories can be incomplete. What do you mean by
"Nothing". What is a dynamic? Do you assume some "time"?
>
> The inconsistency and content of the All and the imperative for level
> 2 makes this dynamic random and perpetual.
?
>
> The resulting dynamic is a repeated extinction/establishment of
> Nothings and evolving Somethings in the All.
>
> The part of the this dynamic that is within the All [evolving
> Somethings] provides repeated instantations of physical reality to all
> the kernels in the All. [In a random fashion in keeping with the
> inconsistent nature of the All.]
>
> Some kernels are descriptions of states of universes so states of
> universes are given perpetual repetitions of instantations of physical
> reality in random sequences.
>
> The result is that all sequences of all states of all universes
> experience a flow of instantations of physical reality [over and over]
> some of which bridge states thus giving any Self Aware Structures
> described in these states a flow of awareness [consciousness].
You lost me, sorry. I really think you should try to recast what you
want to explain in some known theory (with sets or numbers, or
programs, or automata, or waves, whatever ... I can understand the
basic).
Although formalization could be useless, it could help, in this
difficult subject, to realize the many implicit assumptions that you
are using or not.
It could help if you were able to put light on questions already
discussed. For example in your "1", it looks you are using comp, but
then in "2" you introduce randomness, but then you should know that
comp implies strong form of 1-randomness. Are those randomness related?
Also, how do you relate third person description and first person
description (this have to be explained once comp is assumed).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Sep 26 2005 - 10:41:45 PDT