Brian Tenneson
Thu, 01 May 2008 15:31:18 -0700
;) yes. I know the "book" of the future is an archive like this, but something with a table of contents and index would be pretty sweet. Without such, I have trouble reading books. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM, nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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/-<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/->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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---