Hi Norman,

Le 12-août-05, à 20:47, Norman Samish a écrit :

You speak of "God." Could you define what you, as a logician, mean?

Usually I try to avoid the name, especially when I propose "theology" for naming the study of all observer-moments from all possible angles (angles = (plural) person point of views). As a logician, or as a mathematician, I can only adopt their axiomatic methodology. As a "theologian" I can only give you my favorite first axiom for "God", which is that it has no name. It is a common axiom in many actual religion. It is made rather explicit by the Chinese Taoist for giving just one example.

A natural question, then, is: "Is there something the lobian machine cannot name" Logicians are generally using the word "name" in an apparent restricted way, as being not a pointer but some explicit formal description. It happens that "truth", as a predicate applied *on* machine cannot have such a description *for* the machine. A sound lobian machine cannot already named its own *truth* predicate. [Tarski Theorem, in the literature] (And now Theaetetus defines the knower (the first person) by an explicit link between provability and truth, and this, by above, will entail that the knower (the first person) has no name, too.)

Of course, below, I was not using the name of God seriously, I was alluding to some statement made by Einstein about some possible maliciousness of the Lord (as he said from time to time).


BM: An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e asyness comes from the fact that it does not really explained how to make the derivation. The second part is a translation of that argument in the language of the "universal machine itself". This, by the constraints of
theoretical ccomputer science, makes the proof constructive, so that it
gives the complete derivation of physics from computer science. Of course God is a little malicious, apparently, and we are led to hard intractable
purely mathematical questions.  You are welcome, Bruno


Reply via email to