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 it?



Reply via email to