`At 15:59 11/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:`

`<snip>`

I remember discussing this topic but I do not remember you calling me silly. Oh sorry you were only thinking it. Thank you :-)

`You are welcome. You know on these matters we can never be sure :-)`

`Now when you say that the first person is all there is I am not sure it fits nicely with`

the methodology I am following. I am not sure I understand why you don't need the UD,

given that the UD is just a nice third person description of the comp plenitude.

[That such a thing could exist is a highly non trivial consequence of the closure of

the set of programmable functions for the diagonalization: the existence of a universal

machine. (The Post Turing discovery)]. Cf the diagonalization posts.

the methodology I am following. I am not sure I understand why you don't need the UD,

given that the UD is just a nice third person description of the comp plenitude.

[That such a thing could exist is a highly non trivial consequence of the closure of

the set of programmable functions for the diagonalization: the existence of a universal

machine. (The Post Turing discovery)]. Cf the diagonalization posts.

`You could as well just say you don't need comp. (But I use comp to just benefits from`

computer science and mathematical logic taking into account Post Turing Church ...Solovay).

The first person essentially will be an intuitionist/constructivist machine, a self-extending

entity which goes through locally anti-symmetric sequences of knowledge states.

Physics seems to appears in the "first person plural" (where vast collection of interacting

machines are "multiplied"), but the last discovery ---(that a quantum

logic [even an infinity*] appears in the pure singular first person pov)--- surely makes

me more open to the importance of the pure (intuitionist) first person.

Please recall me your feelings about the comp hyp in the cognitive science/philosophy

of mind, if you mind.

I use comp if only because my more primary goal is to show that some hypothesis

could make some "theological" question empirically testable.

computer science and mathematical logic taking into account Post Turing Church ...Solovay).

The first person essentially will be an intuitionist/constructivist machine, a self-extending

entity which goes through locally anti-symmetric sequences of knowledge states.

Physics seems to appears in the "first person plural" (where vast collection of interacting

machines are "multiplied"), but the last discovery ---(that a quantum

logic [even an infinity*] appears in the pure singular first person pov)--- surely makes

me more open to the importance of the pure (intuitionist) first person.

Please recall me your feelings about the comp hyp in the cognitive science/philosophy

of mind, if you mind.

I use comp if only because my more primary goal is to show that some hypothesis

could make some "theological" question empirically testable.

`Bruno`

`* That infinity of QL (Quantum Logic) converging toward CL (Classical logics)`

could be a form of *arithmetical decoherence* as experimented by all sound

Universal Machine with respect to their normal neighborhoods/consistent extensions.

You should study logic just to see the beauty. (Or the error! This material is new,

and has not been verified by someone else. Caution.)

could be a form of *arithmetical decoherence* as experimented by all sound

Universal Machine with respect to their normal neighborhoods/consistent extensions.

You should study logic just to see the beauty. (Or the error! This material is new,

and has not been verified by someone else. Caution.)

`http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/`