Hi Bruno,
Not quite there yet, but making progress....
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:44:44 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Le 19-août-05, à 18:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> [GK]
> I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think those >
would actually invalidate the premise. If you ran into
> a copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something is >
amiss in your world!
[BM]
OK if it is a temporary interdiction. The YD will entail that we are
duplicable in a weak sense (which does not contravene the no-cloning
theorem (but here I anticipate the reasoning)).
You pretend YD is false, show the proof.
[GK]
By now you should have understood that I will not be taunted, so no
use in trying. I do not pretend anything. What I
have told you and maintain is that I can sketch an argument that shows
that your YD is incompatible with QM being the
correct physics of the world and I will do so as soon as you admit
that this will invalidate ALL your thesis (not just the
part of it you feel like conceding). This was my proposal all along
and I have not changed it. So there is no point in
challenging me in these terms. I made clear already.
> [GK]
> What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false.
That allows me to dismiss anything you say based
> on that premise.
Of course. But of course, everything I say from CT and AR alone will
survive. I hope you see this clearly.
[GK]
If you claim that you derive the whole of physics (including QM) from
CT and AR alone there is no point in my showing you that
physics invalidates YD! Is there? You would know that already, or you
could derive it independently! Whether I am right or
wrong would be completely indiferent to you. Why would you even
consider my argument?
> That is actually not general at all but extremely specific. From
here > on I will make no comment on
> any sentence you preface with "But from COMP (or YD) I can prove >
that..." . Nothing personal, please understand.
[BM]
Sure. Except that in a second round (the "interview" of the lobian
machine) I translate "comp" in arithmetic, and I extract *a* physics
from that COMP. To understand that translation YD is very useful, but
no more. Then if the physics that is extracted from the arithmetical
COMP corresponds to the empirical physics, your proof of the falsity of
the YD would show that a falsity has helped in discovering the origin
of the physical laws. Funny but not entirely impossible. Except that,
without wanting to discourage you in advance, it is very hard for me to
believe you have find a proof or an argument showing comp is wrong. But
that makes me just more curious.
[GK]
OK. Let me ask you this than and maybe help you avoid any more painful
contortions: can you even imagine a situation in
which you could be proven wrong? (Please remember how many times you
have underscored that COMP is verifiable!)
(skipped)
I take it like that.
You are telling me you are platonist the week and not platonist the
week-end?
Or "ditto" means you agree with *me*, I guess.
[GK]
I agree with you but I am a platonist 24/7 (=full-time)!
> [GK]
> In that case enjoy the prize! If you derived the laws of physics
from > CT and AR alone you surely deserve the recognition you
> will enjoy because that is a remarkable accomplishment! >
Congratulations!
But there is a derivation of a physics from CT and AR. Just to
understand *that* intuitively you need YD. I have done two things the
universal dovetailer argument (UDA) which shows that YD + CT + AR
entails that physics emerges necessary from a web of machine dreams
(say, dream being entirely defined in term of computer science or
number theory).
But then in the second part, called sometime the arithmetical
universal dovetailer argument (AUDA), or more simply the "interview of
the lobian machine", I translate (UDA) in arithmetic (because comp
makes it possible and necessary). YD disappears or is translated in
arithmetic (by Godel-like devices). The derivation of physics is purely
mathematical of course, I am not a magician extracting the galaxies
from someone saying "yes" to a doctor.
It looks like it disappoints you, but there is two parts in my work:
UDA: an argument that YD + CT + AR implies physics is necessarily a
branch of computer science.
AUDA: a translation of the argument in arithmetic, with the (modest)
result that the logic of the observable proposition is given by the
composition of three mathematical transformations operating on a
"well-known" modal logic (G). And it already looks enough like some
quantum logics to encourage further research. Alas the math are not
easy and not well known.
[GK]
This hardly sounds like a derivation to me. But if your first
statement above (UDA) is correct I deduce that if one of its premises is
false that physics may not necessarily be a branch of computer
science. How else can I read it?
Say "Yes", doctor!
> I feel like saying: my work here is done!
[BM]
But it is done. Yes of course.And if YD is false (which I doubt), UDA
will be dead, ok, but it will make the AUDA much more enigmatic!
[GK]
I am afraid "enigmatic" is not good enough for me! How about:
"heuristically unlikely", "possibly wrong", "in need of further
scrutiny" ? If physics is not a necessary consequence of computer
science how would
> Without even trying I have let you relinquish one of your
hypothesis!
It looks your goal is shooting me completely: the UDA and AUDA!
I have absolutely no worry about YD, but it is a logical fact you ask
me to make clear: even if that were true (that YD is false), that would
kill one halve only, the one some people ask me sometimes to drop out,
but I prefer to keep it for preventing positivistic interpretation of
machine's discourses.
> [GK]
> Well, YD is so secondary to your purposes, why do you care?
[BM]
Because many people take YD for granted, already. Because it makes the
comp-physics obligatory making the whole of comp testable. YD is
secondary for the extraction of physics, but it is necessary for having
an understanding why it is a derivation of physics. I am anormaly
patient, you could understand this by reading the UDA, and the
beginning of the AUDA.
[GK]
Bruno, I would say you are also anormaly resistant to any
consideration of the possibility that you may be wrong! And than
you go and call me arrogant! I, on the other hand, am very willing to
admit my argument may be wrong. Why can't you?
> I am almost sure you would approve my version but I am not
> putting it down until you give me a good reason to do it!!!
[BM]
Because that would kill the first half of my PhD thesis and makes the
second part enigmatic.
But many in this list find YD plausible and if you can show it false,
please do it.
> I am sorry, Bruno, but I see no glory in disappointing a few
computer > scientists(and their grand-mothers)
Only?
> since, you and I agree that their physics stinks! You are the one >
that claims to derive the true physics
Assuming comp in UDA, and assuming COMP (as I wrote it sometimes) for
the translation of comp in the language of a lobian machine
(arithmetic, if you want). The result of the transformation is just a
purely mathematical formula (sorry!).
> so you are the one I would like to shoot down! If you really only
need > CT and AR I really have no other choice but to worship at your
altar > (;-) since I really don't want to have to go through your proof
and I > am no match for CT or AR. It is a pity because it is a cute
little > argument I have up my sleeve ....
My senses detect some arrogance here. Do you mean you would not give
the argument once you realize that strictly speaking it could only
wound my work without killing it completely? You could have first take
a look at the table of content.
Either you give the argument in the next post, or I will give you the
everything-list-prize of arrogance Godfray.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
[GK]
Again, I can't help notice that I am the one who has been found guilty
of name calling! I have so particular stake in dismissing your work but
I sense, instead, a certain lack of consistency between the admirable
principles of scientific skepticism that you
claim to profess and your reticence in admiting that they may apply to
your work. That is not very becoming in a logician (;-)
and that is what I am aiming at!
Also, I have not given up on you yet!
Best regards,
-Godfrey
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
