Le 07-juil.-05, à 23:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to
give you my reaction.
It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your assumptions.
Certainly. In a mathematical theory the theorems are always "hidden" in
I think you?ve even stated that before (using ?embedded? rather than
?hidden?), referring especially to comp. But I?d say that the trick
is hidden in your assumptions about the universe or ?physical
reality?. It is the assumption that ?physical reality? is limited to
what we can imagine (?communicable physical laws?, with emphasis on
communicable) and sense (?incommunicable physical knowledge?) it to
be, i.e. in our conscious brains.
Be careful. At that stage I don't necessarily have conscious brain.
Actually I don't have brain, which are physical object and physics is
not yet derived from the relation between numbers.
This is stated in your definition of ?Fundamental Physics? as being
?the correct-by-definition discourse about observable and verifiable
anticipation of possible relatively evolving quantities and/or
This is a very neutral definition of a "perfect physics". At that stage
the "correct physics" could still be even a Newtonian physics, like
"there is universe and objects in it obey such and such laws. At that
stage, that could be the correct physics. In the word "discourse" I
include its intended meaning. It can still be a physicalist discourse!
But then, through comp, physicalism will be jeopardized in a completely
So if A=?physical reality? and B=?consciousness?, then the assumption
This is much to vague. You identify physics and discourse. Put I said
"correct discourse" and this includes the semantics (meaning) of the
It seems that the rest is extraneous because with A=B you?ve already
practically reached your conclusion, even without comp.
You would be right if I was defining literally physics by the physical
discourse, but I define it by the correct discourse. It could be
"string theory" or "QM", etc. Then comp shows we have no choice, and
eventually the comp-physics is given by a precise things all lobian
machine can find by introspection. To test comp we can then compare
that "comp-physics" with the verified part of empirical physics. If the
comp-physics predicts Bell's inequality cannot be violated then comp
would be refutated, etc. This shows the rest is not extraneous.
Am I missing something?
You have make a confusion between "discourse" and "correct (by
I know it is subtle (and many thanks to point to the fact that a
misunderstanding can occur already there). I would say that by
progressing in the UDA could help you to see this subtle point. When I
translate the UDA in the language of a Lobian machine, a similar
difficulty appears making at first sight believe that physics will just
be the "classical tautologies" (and that would make physics, with comp,
a purely geographico-historical matter, but then incompleteness entails
it is not so, we get sort of quantum tautologies.