Le 23-déc.-05, à 23:46, John M a écrit :
> BTW, Bruno, from the little I did understand from your
> texts so far and from the lots I didn't I think we are
> NOT in a perfect match of worldviews. Hard to
> pinpoint, because I bleong to those who do not
> "speak"/(think) within your vocabulary <G>
I don't think it is a question of vocabulary, and actually I am not
sure we are not in, well *perfect* perhaps not, but at least in an a
larger matching area than you think.
Perhaps, like so many, you have not yet really understand the impact of
the discovery by Turing and its relation with Godel's theorem.
When I talk on Platonia, it is really "Platonia" updated by Godel's and
Lob's theorem. I hope you are open to the idea I could perhaps progress
in my way of communicating that. It really concerns machines and even
many non-machines. I think about abandoning comp for ind, where ind is
for indexical, given that G and G* applies to almost anything
self-referentially correct.
I knew this for long, the comp hyp just makes the reasoning and the
verification easier.
All what I say John is that anyone interested in Truth should look deep
inside him or her or itself, and that's all.
That's hardly original, but I add something: a diskette with a couple
of programs enabling you to follow in a finite time some sort of
infinite conversation with a Universal Turing Machine looking deep
inside herself.
Which programs? G, G*, G* \ G, S4Grz, S4Grz1, Z1, Z1*, X1, X1*, etc.
And this leads to a testable "TOE" explaining both qualia and quanta,
without assuming quanta or any piece of stuff at the start.
Verifiability is ensured by the fact that propositional physics should
be given, with the ind hyp, by S4Grz1, or X1* or Z1* precise
propositional logics (and as far as I have been able to proceed we got
quantum logics there)
John, George, Stephen, Kim, thanks for your naming suggestion. I will
continue to medidate upon! I can already say that I disagree the word
"quantum" should be in it. The name should not issue what will or
should be derived by the theory. There is nothing surprising that
quantum physics could be derived from quantum psycho mechanics. Please
recall I am not assuming anything physical.
Also, the questions that I address has been addressed by many people
before (Plato, Plotinus, Proclos, and many others in different
continents). Nobody would say that ocidental psychomechanics has begun
with Plato or Plotinus. The word I am searching should be large,
general, and without as few presupposition as possible.
Plato is the one who introduced the word "theology" with the meaning of
"Science of Gods", and by extension I take it as the science of what we
can hope or bet upon. It is just the truth *about* machine, and we can
talk and reason about it without ever knowing that truth, given that no
scientist at all can *know* the truth, at least as knowed.
To talk on immortality issues (cf: quantum immortality or
comp-immortality) without accepting we are doing theology is perhaps a
form of lack of modesty.
Nobody would dare to try to help me making a case for the use of the
word "theology"?
I am not yet convinced by your argument against the use of the word
"theology" but you help me to be aware that some misunderstanding
prevails here. I should perhaps say more about Plotinus, and other
neo-platonists.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Dec 26 2005 - 10:01:44 PST