Hi Bruno,

I guess I spoke too soon...

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
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
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.

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
previous post.

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 it?



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.

Best regards,

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to