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


[GK]
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!


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 based
 on 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 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.



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 platonist during the week, most like to pretends they are not (the
week-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 from CT and AR alone you surely deserve the recognition you will 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 computer scientists(and their grand-mothers)


Only?



since, you and I agree that their physics stinks! You are the one that 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 need CT 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 I am no match for CT or AR. It is a pity because it is a cute little argument 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/


Reply via email to