Le 22-août-05, à 00:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
By now you should have understood that I will not be taunted, so no
use in trying. I do not pretend anything. What I
have told you and maintain is that I can sketch an argument that
shows that your YD is incompatible with QM being the
correct physics of the world and I will do so as soon as you admit
that this will invalidate ALL your thesis (not just the
part of it you feel like conceding). This was my proposal all along
and I have not changed it. So there is no point in
challenging 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