I guess I spoke too soon...
(New Brunswick, NJ)
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:05:58 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
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
> 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
use in trying. I do not pretend anything. What I
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.
I have never claimed to have a proof that YD is false only that I can
give you an argument that "QM can shoot down YD"
and this being the case, from what I understand from your previous
post, means that your "proof" that physics is necessarily
reducible to computer science" is incorrect in the CT and AR are true.
I quite sure you have stated that much in your
To be more specific my argument aims to show you that if QM is the
correct microscopic description of the world (in which
you apply YD) than YD is contradicts it. I am quite sure that I never
stated anything different. I might have used the
expression "if YD is false" as a condition but that means "if my
argument is correct".
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.
This is news to me! If I read you right it means that you already
proved my point! That is reassuring. I had some lingering
doubts about my argument, of course, but seems that my intuitions are
correct at least since you have anticipated them.
Now which one of those nuances that you speak of salvages an
hypothesis that contradicts QM? I'm curious...
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).
Bruno, you are just too kind! I would describe it the other way round:
I am "way behind your thesis" since you already argued
my point out affirmatively! I guess that is the problem with us "White
Rabbits" always arriving late...
Please make your point, we can still discussed its impact after, isn't
Well, I am kind of discouraged now. It would no longer be my point
since you already proved it and made it yours.
Let me think about it.
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.