>From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Jacques Mallah wrote:
> >I really don't know what you mean by "concrete".

>Math is math, but is physic math? By a concrete UD I was meaning a real
>actual one, like the one I have implemented on a macintosh SE/30, and
>which has been running during two weeks in 1990 at Brussels.
>Of course I postulate here some "physical universe" as a local decor.

    Sorry, that doesn't help.  What do you mean by a "real actual" one?  
What other kind is there, a fake one?  Either it exists, or not.
    Of course, in your macintosh example, the UD was itself implemented by 
some other mathematical structure - your "local decor".  Does that matter?  
If anything, that makes it more of a virtual UD than the one we discuss for 
the AUH!

>Look, to be sure we are using "impIementation" in the same sense, I quote
>yourself (from http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/cwia.htm#II3)
><<In turn, a computation is associated with a physical system only if it 
>has been implemented by that system.
>
>So either you believe there is only math (including computer science and 
>all computations), then "implementation" is a emerging concept, as are 
>anything linked to physical predicates.
>Or you believe there exists something "physical" per se. Then indeed
>you can defined implementation in a sense relative to that physicalness.

    Actually, I would say that any mathematical structure that has real 
existance (in the strong sense) should be called "physical".  I do not know 
of any better definition for "physical existance".  Of course, those who do 
not believe in the AUH are thus forced to believe that some subset of math 
has somehow been singled out to be real.
    Nowhere did I say that _only_ a "physical" system could implement a 
computation.  But you did bring to my attention the fact that I should make 
the definition of "implementation" more clear on this point.  In other 
places, I do point out that one computation can implement another.  (In 
turn, the second one might implement another, etc.; the first one will 
therefore implement all of those.)
    So, your objection is irrelevant.  You do believe a UD implements other 
computations.

> >    The "third person view" is fully capable of describing the entire
> >situation.  (Notice that _I_ never use the term "3rd person view"; a 
>better term would be "actual situation".)
>
>Actuality is a first person concept.

   I have no clue as to what you mean.

>3rd person view is everything you can communicate in a scientific manner 
>without taking into account the subjective view of a person.

    If the person has some set of beliefs, they can be described as part of 
the true description of the situation.  (Which you is what I thought you 
call the "3rd person view".)

> >Hey, what's the french word for "crap"?  I bet it would sound much more 
>elegant ... unless the french just stole it.
>
>Crap means "merde" according to my dictionnary. Is it true "crap" means
>"shit"?

    It's true, but it is not considered as vulgar.  Don't ask me why, but 
the meaning of a word does not seem to determine whether it is vulgar.  Thus 
"excrement" is considered fine.

>You know "merde", isn't it?, The famous word used by the general Cambrone 
>during the Napoleonian wars ...

    I'm not familiar with it.  Does "merde" have a special meaning, the way 
"crap" does?

                         - - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
         Physicist  /  Many Worlder  /  Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
         My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Reply via email to