Le 07-juil.-05, à 23:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :


Bruno,

After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to give you my reaction.


Thanks,



It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your assumptions.



Certainly. In a mathematical theory the theorems are always "hidden" in the axioms.




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 qualities.?


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 testable way.



So if A=?physical reality? and B=?consciousness?, then the assumption is A=B.


This is much to vague. You identify physics and discourse. Put I said "correct discourse" and this includes the semantics (meaning) of the discourse.



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 definition) discourse. 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.

Bruno


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

Reply via email to