Le 21-oct.-06, à 02:12, David Nyman a écrit :
> Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in > fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the > data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the > data'. And my point is also that a model which is, in this respect > particularly, so counter to 'normal science' is especially provocative > and deserves much attention. Well, it gets it on this list but > unfortunately much of the debate goes round in circles because the > concepts are hard to grapple with, let alone master sufficiently to > rebut (short of IMHO sterile debates about 'reification'). Hence we > don't get very far... hence (please) THE ROADMAP. But I wouldn't want > Bruno to feel I was harrassing him... Not at all. Actually, you just make higher the probability that I write that [censored] english version of my thesis. Let me give you an infinitesimal roadmap: 1) UDA UDA shows that if we are digital machine then we cannot distinguish any reality from purely arithmetical one, and that we have to justify the "physical laws" by some measure on some relations between numbers. It fits a recurring intuition in this list: we have to define "observer moments" and we have to find a measure on them (absolute for some, relative for others, ...) UDA uses the comp hypothesis: YD + CT + AR (Yes doctor + Church Thesis + Arithmetical Realism) 2) AUDA Mmmmh.... Let me put it in this way. AUDA is the same as UDA except that it uses the a-comp hypothesis. a-comp is just CT + AR. "a" is for "arithmetical". No need to implicate yourself personally with complex personal questions like "should I say yes to the doctor and what happens after self-duplication ...". The trick is simple if not naive. Instead of interviewing you or humans like in the UDA, I interview "directly" the machine. Not all machines are interesting here, but thanks to AR, or classical AR, I can limit the interview on a "platonist" (here it means a theorem prover accepting the P v ~P principle) self-referentially correct sufficiently chatty (proving) universal machine. Things to understand for AUDA: 1) The absoluteness of the notion of computability (this is equivalent with the understanding that CT is not trivial at all: CT entails that absoluteness. Such absoluteness are rare events in mathematics and logics). 2) The irreducible relativeness of the notion of provability (this is incompleteness, and it follows also from CT, through very few diagonalizations). 3) The provability logics. G, G* and their intensional (modal) variants. David, what is your relation with computers? Do you know one or two programming languages? Do you know classical propositional logic? formally, informally? I can really start from zero, if only (obviously) that is what I have to do with the universal machine in the interview! Nevertheless, according to your background I can accelerate here and there at least in the roadmap. I appreciate your interest, don't hesitate to harass me more. I feel I little bit guilty for the list which does not always appreciate the importance of putting all the cards on the table at some point, but then it has to be a little more technical. Perhaps it could be an opportunity also to take the train ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
