Le 21-févr.-06, à 05:50, danny mayes a écrit :
> Bruno,
> Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value
> of the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In
> fact it seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that
> provides some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives
> insight into why the most elegant or simplest explanations of
> observations in nature tend to be the correct explanations.
> My earlier suggestion regarding the popularity of your ideas was not
> intended to be a criticism.
I didn't take it as a criticism, thanks. I just try to always point on
the discrepancy so as no wasting time of the reader. Rereading myself I
realize that it could look like I am liking too much the polemics, but
it is just a "e-mail" side effect.
> To the extent I understand you I find myself in agreement with many
> of your ideas.
> Regarding the view of everything as mathematical object, it seems
> this has an element of truth to me, but it also seems to possibly miss
> something important. As Hawking said, what is it that breathes fire
> into the equations?
I think that if you accept the comp hyp you could figure out why we
don't need breathes firing into the equations. Psychological
experiences are related to computational histories, living in Platonia,
and then, from our points of views which are distributed on all
histories, those experiences should "glue" in such a way that
appearances of "firing breathes" can be predicted.
>
> Perhaps a better view is the reduction of everything to information,
> versus mathematical object, as some have suggested in recent
> publications? A quick search for a definition of information came up
> with this: 1) that which reduces uncertainty. (Claude Shannon); 2)
> that which changes us. (Gregory Bateson). Interesting in this
> context, maybe, to look at it that way. The view of everything in the
> context of information perhaps leaves open the role of
> intelligence/consciousness in a fundamental explanation.
This is an interesting and very difficult question. I have a lost (but
will search) the reference of a paper (in preparation) by Abramski, on
that subject. Deith Devlin has also try to connect Shannon
information, and the information in the sense of the logicians.
Logicians used "information" in many sense, though., either as part of
a construction, or as a way a notion of truth can classify sub-objects
or substructures of a structure. I guess this can be related to
consciousness, but the field of "comparative information theory" is not
yet born! The use of Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Solovay notions of
algorithmic complexity, and more genrally the book of Li and Vitaniy
(which has been already discussed) can surely provide information (!)
useful for building those bridges between domains.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 12:32:12 PST