Dear Bruno and Godfrey,
It seems to me a proof that YD is false be equivalent to a proof that a
Machine X fails the Turing Test! Is this nonsense about falsifying YD not a
requirement that we prove a negative proposition?
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: subjective reality
OK. I think we are making progress. I will start the other thread after
as I don't really have more obvious divergences from you and you are kind
to indulge me in this little diversion. As before I will erase the
obvious points of
(New Brunswick, NJ)
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:48:06 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Le 18-août-05, à 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
"No YD, no Bruno"!?! You make me anxious :)
I am sorry! That was very callous of me! I really did not mean to imply
that you would be "eliminated"
by my argument! Much on the contrary, I am hoping you will be...
illuminated (;-) !!!
SWE : Schroedinger Wave Equation
YD: Saying Yes to a doctor who propose you an artificial digital
"generalized brain". First axiom of comp.
(Some people complains out-of-line for the acronyms, so I repeat them
once by mail).
> It seems to me that you are weaseling out of it but I don't quite >
care if you take refuge in another Everett World.
> would be a cop out and I am sure you know it. I want you and I >
digitised IN THIS WORLD! I don't care for copies!
Well: not of copies IN THIS WORLD, I guess. Giving that that is really
the by-product of saying YES to the DOCTOR (YD).
I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think those would
actually invalidate the premise. If you ran into
a copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something is amiss
in your world!
> I don't much care what you can deduce from COMP, Bruno. I care that
> shoot down COMP. You could very well deduce from COMP my >
non-existence if YD is false.
COMP=YD+CT+AR and that shooting down YD would
Only if YD is *proved* false!!! (I could deduce your inexistence from the
SWE if any TOE (theory of everything) which supposed SWE true, if SWE is
false!). You are saying something very general here!
What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false. That
allows me to dismiss anything you say based
on that premise. That is actually not general at all but extremely
specific. From here on I will make no comment on
any sentence you preface with "But from COMP (or YD) I can prove that..."
. Nothing personal, please understand.
> BM: Ouh la la. You are close to the 1004 fallacy (asking for more >
precise definition than the reasoning itself). At the start you can > use
the term "axioms", "postulates", "theses", "premises", > "assumptions",
"hypotheses", etc.. in a similar way.
> I think you get my point. I am not asking for precision at all. I am
pointing out that thesis and doctrines are not hypotheses
> tout court. These three "assumptions" do not have the same epistemic
> If you don't like it, than acknowledge my pragmatics: if your >
point-of-view is falsifiable it should be so without compromising > either
CT and AR which stand very well on their own as you underscore > below:
status and it is misleading to call them the same.
Mmhhh... This is your opinion, and perhaps mine. But not of most people
to which my proof is addressed (computer scientist).
Oh I would not worry! Computer scientists are by, now, used to have their
hopes dashed (;-). And you strike me as a "real
grown-up" since you are not afraid of facing up to empirical testing!
> Well, I have decided to put it explicitly, because, in front of my >
reasoning, some people cop out simply by saying "Ah, but you are a >
platonist!". So I prefer to say it at once. I agree with you it is a >
sort of "cop out". Now, although 99,99999999 % of the mathematician > are
platonist during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the