Dear Bruno,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: "Everything-List List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Le 05-nov.-05, à 15:57, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
> Again, Bruno, your theory prohibits *any* kind of notion that involves
> *change*. That is its Achilles Heel.
[BM]
We already discussed this. When you define the first person by the
Theaetetical trick you get freely, from the self-reference logic G, a
temporal logic. The one named by S4Grz. Search in the archive "S4Grz".
Read "S 4 Grzegorczyk".
Theatetical trick = define Cp (knowing p) by "p & Bp" i.e. you prove p
and p is true.
**
[SPK]
So you are asking us to take a "definition" to be a proof of existence?!
I find this to be merely a "castle in midair", sorry, but that is due to
my lack of understanding of your "trick"; it is the fact that it appears to
be a "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps" trick is what bothers me about
it. I have nothing against bootstrapping IF and only IF there is a clear
reasoning as to how it does not violate coherence with the rest of logic and
physics. BTW, I am still waiting to read an English version of your Thesis.
That, I hope, might help me. Have you considered Google's translation
services?
**
[BM]
The 3-platonia is timeless, but so are many "block-universes" for many
physicists. S4Grz explains the origin of the appearance of time from
the internal points of view of machines/numbers.
**
[SPK]
And it is that timelessness that I am basing my argument against your
thesis! YOu are ignoring the vast number of arguments that have been found
in physics and even the reasoning comming from computer science, for example
the Calude et al work on the non-embeddability of quantum logic into
classical logics. One simply can not obtain quantum logic from classical
logic without adding postulates to classical logic.
Your work is, as I see it, the equivalent to trying to derive quantum
physics and the wide variety of experimental evidence from some
super-classical physics. This is not a new thing, you just seem to have
found a way to do in using logical systems instead of matematical physics.
The point is that it is equivalent!
Additionally, there is some good work that shows a very promising way of
solving the emergence of time from timelessness by Prof. Kitada, but it is
far over my paygrade to even attempt to traslate his work into your
language. Thus I ask that you read what he has written and see if it makes
some sense to you. This paper is, I think, a good place to start:
http://www.kitada.com/timeV.html
***
[BM]
In general physicist does not even address this question (by naively
relating belief in change with some physical change, but that leads to
many difficulties as the UD argument is supposed to illustrate).
***
[SPK]
You are very mistaken one this! Physicists are deeply interested in this
question, even to the point that there are yearly conferences on the
subject:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22problem+of+time%22+conference
***
[BM]
I will perhaps make other comments next week, but I must go now ...
Best,
Bruno
PS What do you mean by "onward"?
***
[SPK]
It is short for a battle cry: "Onward into the Unknown", the motto of
explorers. ;-)
Onward!
Stephen
Received on Sat Nov 05 2005 - 15:39:56 PST