Le 22-août-05, à 00:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

## Advertising

By now you should have understood that I will not be taunted, so nouse in trying. I do not pretend anything. What Ihave told you and maintain is that I can sketch an argument thatshows that your YD is incompatible with QM being thecorrect physics of the world and I will do so as soon as you admitthat this will invalidate ALL your thesis (not just thepart of it you feel like conceding). This was my proposal all alongand I have not changed it. So there is no point inchallenging me in these terms. I made clear already.

`I thought you said you get a proof that YD is false. (Confirmed by my`

`looking at your posts).`

`This would have invalidate the Universal Dovetailer Argument (but not`

`its arithmetical translation as I explained before).`

`Now you are saying that YD is just inconsistent with QM. This is a far`

`much weaker statement, which would not refute anything at all. On the`

`contrary, given that my UDA-point says that comp entails verifiable`

`physical statements (a whole comp-phys). And for me it is still an open`

`problem if comp-phys is compatible with QM or not, or is even equal to`

`QM or not.`

`Actually, if you read my thesis you will see that I arrive at a point`

`where I conclude that comp (thus YD) seems to be in contradiction with`

`QM, because it gives a priori much more relative computational`

`continuations than QM (the white rabbit problem), but then I explain`

`that computer science and incompleteness phenomena force us to add many`

`nuances, and this is what has lead me to make a complete translation`

`of UDA in arithmetic.`

`So, this means you could just be *in advance* of my thesis! That would`

`still be very interesting of course, so, please make your point.`

`Ah yes you want to make it only if it demolishes the whole of a thesis`

`that you admitted not having read (I don't understand at all why you`

`don't want to give a (perhaps interesting) argument unless it refutes a`

`thesis that you admitted not having read).`

`Please make your point, we can still discussed its impact after, isn't`

`it?`

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