nichomachus
Thu, 01 May 2008 15:24:29 -0700
You mean, besides the archive of this list? ;) On May 1, 2:16 pm, "Brian Tenneson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been > collected? I would like to get my hands on such. > > --Brian > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Marchal Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello Günther, > > > >> I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the > > >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably) showing > > that: > > > >> - CRH implies COMP > > >> - COMP implies the negation of CRH > > >> - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH does > > >> not hold. > > > >Regarding: > > > >COMP implies the negation of CRH > > > >Is this also in your Sane 2004 paper? (then I missed that point) - if > > >not, where did you argue this? > > > It is not in the Sane 2004 paper. I have argue that COMP imples NOT-CRH > > online, in reply to Schmidhuber or someone defending the idea that the > > universe could be the product of a computer program. > > > Universality, Sigma_1 completeness, m-completness, creativity (in Post > > sense), all those equivalent notion makes sense only through complementary > > notion which are strictly sepaking more complex (non RE, productive, ...). > > The self-introspecting universal machine can hardly miss the inference of > > such "realities", and once she distinguishes the 1, 1-plural, 3-person > > points of view, she has to bet on the role of the non computable realities > > (even too much getting not just randomness, like QM, but an hard to compute > > set of anomalous stories (white rabbits, coherent but inconsistent dreams). > > > It's a bit like "understanding" (putting in a RE set) the (code of) the > > total computable functions, forces us to accept the existence of only > > partially computable functions, which sometimes (most of the time, see the > > thesis by Terwijn) have a non recursive domain. > > OK, the ontic part of a comp TOE can be no *more* than Sigma_1 complete, > > but a non self-computable part of Arithmetical truth and analytical truth, > > is needed to get the *internal* measure, we can't even give a name to our > > first person plenitude and things like that. > > > The quantified "angel guardian" of a simple Lobian machine like PA, that > > is qG*, is itself Pi_1 in the Arithmetical Truth (see Boolos 1993 book). > > The "God" of PA (already unameable by PA) is already NOT omniscient about > > PA's intelligible reality, if you follow the arithmetical interpretation of > > Plotinus I did propose. > > Perhaps this is why the Intelligible has been discovered (Plato) before > > the "ONE" (Plotin). It is far bigger. With comp you can restrict the ontic > > to the Universal Machine (the baby ONE), but its intelligible realm is well > > beyond its grasp. > > All this is related to the fact, already understood by Judson Webb, that > > comp is truly a vaccine against reductionist theories of the mind. > > > Have a good day, > > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---