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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/ > >
