Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit :

Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit :
Because there is only one particle (and its  anti-particle) and one
force from which the entire universe is built.  How could there be
anything simpler?

John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, epistemology).

It seems at first glance that a 0 particle + 0 force + a Turing Machine is vastly more complicated than 1 particle and 1 force.

I agree with you, but actually I don't take "0 particle + 0 force + a Turing Machine" but "0 particle + 0 force + *all* (Turing) machine *computations*, and this is equivalent with just arithmetical realism. Thanks to the Universal Dovetailer (UD) this can be shown to equate the effective part of arithmetic. I showed that from the machine point of view (described, assuming comp, by atemporal relations between numbers) this appears as a dynamical non boolean gigantic (truly unameable) plenitude.
I can put "Turing" in parentheses thanks to Church thesis.

However, John makes many other assumptions regarding space, time and how the particle and the force operate. The Turing machine model does not use a "real Turing Machine." Instead it employs a "fictitious" one so in the end it may be simpler.


As I understand it, a fictitious conscious Turing machine emerges out of the Plenitude as an image emerges out of a Rorschach image when observed by a conscious observer.  In the case of the Turing machine, the conscious observer is the conscious Turing machine itself which pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. The Turing Machine does not "really" (objectively) exist. It only exists in the mind of the Turing machine. Here is a self referential situation in line with the thread "Re: MWI and Topos theory." All existence become subjective and has a first person perspective.

The advantage of this approach is that it tackles the Mind-Body problem up-front. The ingredients do not include any particle, force, space or time. These can be derived later. Even the Turing Machine is fictitious: it only has a subjective existence but must be conscious. The "only" real requirement is the Plenitude. "Ay, there's the rub," as Hamlet said. What is the Plenitude?

The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite) proofs of the Sigma_1 sentences, etc.
The 1-plenitudes are then so big (provably) that they are not nameable. Approximations can be named though, and their logics can be assessed, and tested.



Reply via email to