Le 26-juin-05, à 03:22, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :

Le Samedi 25 Juin 2005 18:51, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
Not really because you assume our eyes are bounded. Any finite machine
running forever recurs but not infinite or universal one.


Yes I assume my eyes are bounded... because they are, physically speaking they

Well, it could depend by what you mean by "i". And by seeing. Stathis has also assumed in his reasoning that our number of neurons is bounded, but a human can be defined in a more large sense which include the wall on which he draws buffalos. What is important is that we are extendible in principle, at least to make sense of church's thesis and universal machine, and things like "all OM".

And if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we are universal
machine (or we are part of it) so that we can't recurs...

I should have said that we don't *necessarily* recur.
(And then IF we don't recur, we cannot prove it. We always possibly recur).

But as I have
showed, what I can see is finite (without taking into accound brain states which is more than 2 states for a neuron, 2 states or electrical states of
the brains and not taking in account chemicals properties is not brain
states)... what ever event a possible observer which could see all is
finite... I take 100000x100000 resolution, taking an higher resolution will just reveal better and better detail, but we do not see infinite detail...
(and I don't conceive my consciousness able to see/understand infinite
detail). But if I read that an universal machine runing forever can't repeat, that means that the machine will "see" better details each time... but what does it means for us ? do you mean that we have to see better and better the world ? has we get asymptotically to an infinite age we should be aware of
more details ?

Depending on what *you* mean by "I" you can consider it happens all the time or not. "We see" more and more details from bacteria to ... Hubble. If you buy an artificial brain you still have the option of path toward amnesia, or attempt to live a "long" life, seeing more and more detailed but also, and mainly, grasping bigger view on the spectacle. But the price is bigger problems like escaping (or not) black holes, etc.

The interest of hypotheses like comp and variants, is not really that it solves such questions, but it can help to formulate them more clearly and it can help to give an idea how complex they are.



Reply via email to