Bruno,
thanks for your VERY considerate reply, I will respond
later in more detail. Now I simply want to point to
some facetious(?) connotations about words, as the
profanum vulgus may (flippantly) misunderstand them
(and YES, I believe it is vocabularial):
"psycho" (in a hazy phrase) points to "loony".
"quantum" recalls Niels Bohr and ilk.
"mechanics" points to something 'physical'. Machinery,
gadget.
And prejudice upon a title (words) is distorting
objectivity.
(Don't forget, English is my 5th, so I am more bound
to semantic content than people born into (even any)
"Indo-European". These are my feelings, maybe all
wrong.)
Are we close in thinking? I wish I had a well enough
formulated view to compare. I definitely would not
speak about TRUTH, which is 1st person belief, the
objective reality (not a perception of such) is IMO
beyond our mental capturing capability.
I try to keep away from model-topics, like God or
longer: Godel,
(although I use the proper German pronounciation). And
I am very suspicious about conclusions of the pre-Flat
Earth age old Greeks
- no matter how ingenious - missing humanity's 2.5
millenia-long epistemic/cognitive enrichment as basis
for their thinking. Still stifling our (free -
advanced) thinking.
Best regards
John
--- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> 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 - 11:10:10 PST