Joel wrote: >>Bruno: >> I am not sure there is any (absolute) bottom. > >Mustn't we assume there is? > >If there is no bottom, what will we stand on? > >How can we understand anything at all?
I should have been more clear. I put at the (3-) bottom arithmetical truth. It just means I believe sentence like "2+2=4", Fermat theorem, Goldbach conjecture, or like "the machine with Goedel number 42" does not stop on 24", etc. are true or false independently of my ability to prove them or not. I am trying to show you (in the UDA threads) that physics is a 1-phenomenon and it will appear that 1-phenomenon truly lacks bottom. >If we live in a world that is designed by a >friendly entity, then s/he might >make things purposely related to "the bottom", >and easy to figure out. > >But if, as you say, there is no bottom layer, >then all of this speculation >is sortof meaningless. There are 3-bottoms, no 1-bottoms. This is not unrelated to incompleteness phenomena but the UDA illustrates that quite well. Well, let us hope. Also, how would a friendly entity manages bottom-up links between a universal automata and the "observers" it generates? Bruno