Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit :
>>> Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one
>>> force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be
>>> anything simpler?
>>
>>
>> John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address
>> the mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions
>> (ontology, epistemology).
>
> It seems at first glance that a 0 particle + 0 force + a Turing
> Machine is vastly more complicated than 1 particle and 1 force.
I agree with you, but actually I don't take "0 particle + 0 force + a
Turing Machine" but "0 particle + 0 force + *all* (Turing) machine
*computations*, and this is equivalent with just arithmetical realism.
Thanks to the Universal Dovetailer (UD) this can be shown to equate the
effective part of arithmetic. I showed that from the machine point of
view (described, assuming comp, by atemporal relations between numbers)
this appears as a dynamical non boolean gigantic (truly unameable)
plenitude.
I can put "Turing" in parentheses thanks to Church thesis.
> However, John makes many other assumptions regarding space, time and
> how the particle and the force operate. The Turing machine model does
> not use a "real Turing Machine." Instead it employs a "fictitious" one
> so in the end it may be simpler.
Indeed.
>
> As I understand it, a fictitious conscious Turing machine emerges out
> of the Plenitude as an image emerges out of a Rorschach image when
> observed by a conscious observer. In the case of the Turing machine,
> the conscious observer is the conscious Turing machine itself which
> pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. The Turing Machine does not
> "really" (objectively) exist. It only exists in the mind of the Turing
> machine. Here is a self referential situation in line with the thread
> "Re: MWI and Topos theory." All existence become subjective and has a
> first person perspective.
>
> The advantage of this approach is that it tackles the Mind-Body
> problem up-front. The ingredients do not include any particle, force,
> space or time. These can be derived later. Even the Turing Machine is
> fictitious: it only has a subjective existence but must be conscious.
> The "only" real requirement is the Plenitude. "Ay, there's the rub,"
> as Hamlet said. What is the Plenitude?
The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed
by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite) proofs
of the Sigma_1 sentences, etc.
The 1-plenitudes are then so big (provably) that they are not nameable.
Approximations can be named though, and their logics can be assessed,
and tested.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Oct 22 2005 - 09:18:44 PDT