"Informatique théorique et philosophie de l'esprit" Information Theory of Spirits (mistranslation intended)
My Aristotelian take: >From Leibniz Discourse, http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/leibniz%20-%20discourse%20on%20metaphysics.htm XXXV: The excellence of spirits; that God considers them preferable to other creatures; that the spirits express God rather than the world, while other simple substances express the world rather than God. My candidate for 'spirits' from the perspective of 'string theory' is the chargeless Flux that winds through the 500 topo holes in each Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particle of space. That Flux caused Dimensional Compactification : The Flux caused 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time to inflate as a unified spacetime; by precipitating 6 dimensional CY particles out of that spacetime. That is, the Flux curled-up 6 dimensions into particles of 1000-Planck-scale size (standard 'conservation of dimensions' in superstring theory). On the visible plane the Flux became expressed in the world as ordinary EM fields. Liebniz 'Principle of Continuity' applies to photons, EM fields, Hyper-Flux and Spirits. (Actually Leibniz applied this principle to everything). That Flux glues together both the physical (1) simple substances that express the world (trees, rocks humans), (2) and the spiritual: the CY space particles that express God. Being a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate), the CY particles can be entangled with and communicate with any other BEC. It follows that God is a BEC. Richard ps: i see much of liebniz in string theory. is that of interest? too aristotelian? comp compatible? On 3/6/14, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. >> >> Best, >> >> Bruno >> Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics? > > It is OK, to ask, but it is delicate. > > But it is, partially, the content of two chapters of "the amoeba's > secret". > > Very shortly. From 1973 to 1977 I have been manipulated by a > psychopath. The result being that I will be happy teaching mathematics > in high school, to "earn my life", and doing research as a hobby, but > still attending course, conferences, and doing a lot of conferences, > also, and eventually Professor Gochet, a logician will push me to > publish and I will publish "Informatique théorique et philosophie de > l'esprit", which contains a preliminary version of the universal > dovetailer argument (abridged for reason of place), explaining the > first person indeterminacy (FPI), the Movie Graph "Paradox", and then > the main idea of AUDA, that is, how the Dx ="xx" method enable us to > study the logic of the 3p reference, and the 1p reference, although at > that time I was still missing the Theaetetus idea. That was published > in 1988, in Toulouse, France. I exposed it publicly in 1987, where I > will meet Dennett, and that was at the time of its brainstorms book > (my favorite), and Mind's I, which is the book coming the closest to > comp. A new edition should contain some passage from Galouye, and > matrix or "the prestige". > > Well, similar circumstances will make me engaged, to teach modal > logic, to a group of people (IRIDIA) interested in Artificial > Intelligence. The psychopath succeeded in making believe everyone that > I was mad, so my own much previous attempt to create a AI lab were > just seen as confirmation that I was mad or crackpot. So when I was > hired in that lab, the department of mathematics will send bullet on > IRIDIA. Then Smets, the creator of IRIDIA, will make pressure on me to > make a PhD thesis, and it is indeed through the search of modal system > for Smets "belief theory" that I will give some faith to the deontic > axiom ([]A -> <>A). > > Then I will put down the thesis, but I said to Smets that it would be > better "the psychopath" would not be, well, even close to a jury. That > was delicate, if not impossible. Smets and everybody thought I was > paranoiac. > > Eventually I put it down. November 1994. > Quickly, I got the jury, basically the psychopath and > "friends" (victim accomplices). > After month of discussion, smets seem thinking that things go right as > he was invited to a meeting to discuss the extension of the jury, > including more experts with a fair choice between him and the > mathematicians. > > That was a trap. The meeting was the, normally formal, decision of > receivability, that is a pre-defense formal decision, quasi > administrative, and they will decide by vote of "experts", that is > even before hearing me even for a minute. They will justify that in a > not that bad report, as all experts recognize not seeing any flaw, but > a literary philosopher was not convinced. (?). > > I will defend without problem the thesis elsewhere (Lille), a bit > later due to things of life type of thing. > > It is a thesis in computer science, and I will got the best grade, and > people were enthusiast about this, and indeed I will get that prize > about eight month after the defense, as it is an annual prize for the > best thesis in the french community. It is not a scientific prize, but > the jury contained scientists (mathematicians, computer scientists). > > But then, those of Le Monde and Grasset told me rewrite it and explain > the story somehow. > > That was delicate, it is still is, but again, why should I not trust > them, and I will write it chapters by chapters asking them if that was > OK, and, after some time they get the manuscript, but nothing will > happen, except that Grasset will abandon that contract with "le prix > Le Monde, I will still be reassured that there were just late for some > reason, but then nothing, not even the money, nothing. > > In 2009, I get eliminated from the list of laureates on the 1998 year > on the net, which make me decide to prosecute the psychopath and some > of its accomplice victims, just for the peace of my conscience. > > A guy in Paris was asked to attribute the FPI to someone else, so for > a time in Paris, it was not really the FPI which was the problem. The > guy was honest and changes the subject, or related it only to QM. > > Then the disastrous meeting of the ASSC, in Brussels, pfft, I don't > want to talk on this right now ... > > I am partially faulty as I don't submit paper, but I continue to > oblige when asked. > > There is a gap between logicians and physicists, the subject matter is > difficult, but here the "little history" has not helped. In a context > where the bigger history (1500 years of authoritative aristotelianism) > is not that more helpful. > > At least someone like John Clark tries to argue (I have never met an > "opponent"), and he says something, and gives me hope to convince me > that the FPI might make no sense. Alas, he convinces nobody (including > himself, I think). > > So the answer is yes, it is political, even psycho-media-political, > but made easy in a context where doubting Aristotle makes you a bit > out of the ordinary. > > Well, if you think sincerely one step in UDA is controversial, please > don't hesitate; I love that subject matter and from time to time I do > met people who genuinely misunderstood it, or ignored it. Some people > unconsciously add a metaphysic which is not there. > > You can see it as an extension of Everett to arithmetic, made > necessary when we assume computationalism. > is it really more shocking than Everett? Well shocking does not mean > invalid anyway, when we try to be serious. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
