Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post.
It did not convince me.
#1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with.
I don't. ("once you agree").
#2: Sorry for 'the inside': I meant 'of the change', - while you meant -
of myself.
#3: Arithmetical reality is a figment, just like the physical. I don't
agree in adding and substracting as fundamental in nature's doings: it may
be fundamental in HUMAN thinking.
#4: Your arguments seem to be from the INSIDE of the box - just like those
for other religions - no addition form the outside which comes only
afterwards (once you agreed).
#5: Agreeing - turning into 'disagreeing' once you change your belief in a
theory? I think a theory is not the BASIS ; it is the upper mount sitting
ON the basis.
#6: "I can always imagine other theories and that they may be correct" - so
you can ALWAYS disagree?
#7: To progress in "ONE" theory is not the goal. To progress in the least
controversial one may be.
#8: Is Universal Machine COMPUTING, or COMPUTABLE?
I thought the first one.
John M
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 09 Aug 2012, at 23:48, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to reflect
> to. Sorry if it causes hardship - JM
> -------------
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>> On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
>>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> ....how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?*
>>>
>>>
>>> Universal machine are confronted with many problems....
>>>
>> The Löbian machine knows that she is universal, and so can grasp the
> preceding paragraph, and get in that way even much more questions, and she
> can discover even more sharply her abyssal ignorance. Löbianity is the step
> where the universal machine knows that whatever she could know more, that
> will only make her more ignorant with respect to the unknown. Yet, the
> machine at that stage can also intuit more and more the reason and
> necessity of that ignorance, and with comp, study the approximate
> mathematical description of parts of it.
>
>> JM: looks to me that Univ. Mach. is a fictional charater like Alice
>> in Wunderland, equipped with whatever you need to make it work. Like (my)
>> infinite complexity.
>>
>> The difference is that once you agree on addition and multiplication, you
>> can prove the existence of universal machine, and you can bet that you can
>> implement them in the physical reality, as our concrete physical personal
>> computer, and cells, brain etc, illustrate.
>>
> *JM: don't you see the weak point in your *
> * "once you agree"?*
> *I don't know what to agree in (agnosticism) so NO PROOF*
> *- What our 'cells, brain etc. illustrate' is (our?) figment. *
>
>
>
> OK. I use "agree" with a weaker sense than you. Agreeing with x, does not
> mean that we believe x is true, but that we conjecture it when lacking
> other explanation or axiom, or for any other motivation.
>
> Agreeing only means, in science, that we are willing to share some
> hypothesis, for some time.
>
> In science we only make clear some local momentary *belief*. We never
> pretend something being true (only pseudo-scientist, or pseudo-religious
> people do that).
>
>
>
>
>
>> BM: I think that change is an experience from inside. It follows, I
>> think, from the hypothesis that we might survive through a computer
>> emulation (my working hypothesis).
>>
> *JM: If I watch you to put on weight, I am not inside you.*
>
>
> OK, but I don't see the point.
>
>
>
>
>
> And then there is nothing a universal machine can't be more in love
>>> than ... another universal machine. And then the tendency to reproduce and
>>> multiply, in many directions, that they inherit from the numbers and which
>>> leads to even more complexity and life, I would say.
>>>
>> The arithmetical reality is full of life, populated by many sorts of
>> universal numbers, with many possible sort of relations, and this put a
>> sort of mess in the antic Platonia, and leads to transfinite unboundable
>> complexity indeed.
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>> *JM: I don't want to bore you by "where did that obscure "LIFE" come
> from? What is it?" and how do you know what a universal (machine? number?)
> thinks/feels/wants/kisses? *
> *because you are ONE? OK, but not the only kind that may be, - I suppose.
> Do you deny that there may be other kinds of universal anythings? what do
> THEY love most? *
>
>
> I can always imagine other theories. And that they may be correct.
>
> But we will not progress in one theory, if at each line of our reasoning
> we propose a different theory.
>
> Then, if we are machine, it can be explained why there is only one kind of
> universal computable thing. Of course there will be many universal non
> computable thing, like a universal machine + one oracle. This is well
> known. Arithmetical truth is itself, in some sense, a universal (and non
> computable) entity.
>
>
>
>
> ...But observable is an internal notion. Nobody can observe the
>> "Universe", by definition of "Universe". -- --*??? -- ---*
>>
>> JM: You may argue that I am still within a larger 'inside'.
>> BM: Indeed. You see the point.
>>
>
> *JM: but in such case I've changed the perspective and my conclusions are
> not comparable. And about 'a' UNIVERSE?*
> *In my narrative of a 'Bigbang' story I visualize unlimited number and
> quality of universes. Some may be able to observe others. "We" are too
> simplistic for that. And - our thinking is adjusted to such simplicity, I
> am not proud to say so. Agnostic? Ignorant?*
>
>
> Science is agnostic and ignorant. With comp, it can lead only to more
> agnosticism and ignorance. Science is only a lantern on the infinite
> unknown, and the more we put light on it, the more we can realize its
> bigness, and the amazingly shortness of our sight.
>
> We do agree on this, and all universal machines looking inward, and
> staying consistent in the process knows that.
>
> Like I said, the comp theory assesses a lot of what you say, and explains
> it also, in someway. This does *not* mean it is the correct theory, as this
> we will never know.
>
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
