Le 19-août-05, à 18:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

## Advertising

[GK]I would like to leave copies out of the YD because I think thosewould actually invalidate the premise. If you ran intoa copy of yourself in the street you may suspect that something isamiss in your world!

`OK if it is a temporary interdiction. The YD will entail that we are`

`duplicable in a weak sense (which does not contravene the no-cloning`

`theorem (but here I anticipate the reasoning)).`

You pretend YD is false, show the proof.

[GK]What I propose to do is to show you that your premise, YD, is false.That allows me to dismiss anything you say basedon that premise.

`Of course. But of course, everything I say from CT and AR alone will`

`survive. I hope you see this clearly.`

That is actually not general at all but extremely specific. From hereon I will make no comment onany sentence you preface with "But from COMP (or YD) I can provethat..." . Nothing personal, please understand.

`Sure. Except that in a second round (the "interview" of the lobian`

`machine) I translate "comp" in arithmetic, and I extract *a* physics`

`from that COMP. To understand that translation YD is very useful, but`

`no more. Then if the physics that is extracted from the arithmetical`

`COMP corresponds to the empirical physics, your proof of the falsity of`

`the YD would show that a falsity has helped in discovering the origin`

`of the physical laws. Funny but not entirely impossible. Except that,`

`without wanting to discourage you in advance, it is very hard for me to`

`believe you have find a proof or an argument showing comp is wrong. But`

`that makes me just more curious.`

Now, although 99,99999999 % of the mathematician > are platonistduring the week, most like to pretends they are not (theweek-end!).> > [GK] > > Ditto. Hope you are not serious! [GK] Sorry! "Ditto" over here in the States is used as a note of agreement.

I take it like that.

`You are telling me you are platonist the week and not platonist the`

`week-end?`

Or "ditto" means you agree with *me*, I guess.

[GK]In that case enjoy the prize! If you derived the laws of physics fromCT and AR alone you surely deserve the recognition youwill enjoy because that is a remarkable accomplishment!Congratulations!

`But there is a derivation of a physics from CT and AR. Just to`

`understand *that* intuitively you need YD. I have done two things the`

`universal dovetailer argument (UDA) which shows that YD + CT + AR`

`entails that physics emerges necessary from a web of machine dreams`

`(say, dream being entirely defined in term of computer science or`

`number theory).`

`But then in the second part, called sometime the arithmetical universal`

`dovetailer argument (AUDA), or more simply the "interview of the lobian`

`machine", I translate (UDA) in arithmetic (because comp makes it`

`possible and necessary). YD disappears or is translated in arithmetic`

`(by Godel-like devices). The derivation of physics is purely`

`mathematical of course, I am not a magician extracting the galaxies`

`from someone saying "yes" to a doctor.`

It looks like it disappoints you, but there is two parts in my work:

`UDA: an argument that YD + CT + AR implies physics is necessarily a`

`branch of computer science.`

`AUDA: a translation of the argument in arithmetic, with the (modest)`

`result that the logic of the observable proposition is given by the`

`composition of three mathematical transformations operating on a`

`"well-known" modal logic (G). And it already looks enough like some`

`quantum logics to encourage further research. Alas the math are not`

`easy and not well known.`

I feel like saying: my work here is done!

`But it is done. Yes of course.And if YD is false (which I doubt), UDA`

`will be dead, ok, but it will make the AUDA much more enigmatic!`

Without even trying I have let you relinquish one of your hypothesis!

It looks your goal is shooting me completely: the UDA and AUDA!

`I have absolutely no worry about YD, but it is a logical fact you ask`

`me to make clear: even if that were true (that YD is false), that would`

`kill one halve only, the one some people ask me sometimes to drop out,`

`but I prefer to keep it for preventing positivistic interpretation of`

`machine's discourses.`

[GK] Well, YD is so secondary to your purposes, why do you care?

`Because many people take YD for granted, already. Because it makes the`

`comp-physics obligatory making the whole of comp testable. YD is`

`secondary for the extraction of physics, but it is necessary for having`

`an understanding why it is a derivation of physics. I am anormaly`

`patient, you could understand this by reading the UDA, and the`

`beginning of the AUDA.`

I am almost sure you would approve my version but I am not putting it down until you give me a good reason to do it!!!

`Because that would kill the first half of my PhD thesis and makes the`

`second part enigmatic.`

`But many in this list find YD plausible and if you can show it false,`

`please do it.`

I am sorry, Bruno, but I see no glory in disappointing a few computerscientists(and their grand-mothers)

Only?

since, you and I agree that their physics stinks! You are the onethat claims to derive the true physics

`Assuming comp in UDA, and assuming COMP (as I wrote it sometimes) for`

`the translation of comp in the language of a lobian machine`

`(arithmetic, if you want). The result of the transformation is just a`

`purely mathematical formula (sorry!).`

so you are the one I would like to shoot down! If you really only needCT and AR I really have no other choice but to worship at your altar(;-) since I really don't want to have to go through your proof and Iam no match for CT or AR. It is a pity because it is a cute littleargument I have up my sleeve ....

`My senses detect some arrogance here. Do you mean you would not give`

`the argument once you realize that strictly speaking it could only`

`wound my work without killing it completely? You could have first take`

`a look at the table of content.`

`Either you give the argument in the next post, or I will give you the`

`everything-list-prize of arrogance Godfray.`

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