Re: Let There Be Something

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Everything-List List" <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Le 05-nov.-05, à 15:57, Stephen Paul King a écrit : >    Again, Bruno, your theory prohibits *any* kind of notion that involves > *change*. That is its Achilles Heel. [BM] We already discussed this. When you define the first person by the Theaetetical trick you get freely, from the self-reference logic G, a temporal logic. The one named by S4Grz. Search in the archive "S4Grz". Read "S 4 Grzegorczyk". Theatetical trick = define Cp (knowing p) by "p & Bp" i.e. you prove p and p is true. ** [SPK]     So you are asking us to take a "definition" to be a proof of existence?!       I find this to be merely a "castle in midair", sorry, but that is due to my lack of understanding of your "trick"; it is the fact that it appears to be a "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps" trick is what bothers me about it. I have nothing against bootstrapping IF and only IF there is a clear reasoning as to how it does not violate coherence with the rest of logic and physics. BTW, I am still waiting to read an English version of your Thesis. That, I hope, might help me. Have you considered Google's translation services? ** [BM] The 3-platonia is timeless, but so are many "block-universes" for many physicists. S4Grz explains the origin of the appearance of time from the internal points of view of machines/numbers. ** [SPK]     And it is that timelessness that I am basing my argument against your thesis! YOu are ignoring the vast number of arguments that have been found in physics and even the reasoning comming from computer science, for example the Calude et al work on the non-embeddability of quantum logic into classical logics. One simply can not obtain quantum logic from classical logic without adding postulates to classical logic.     Your work is, as I see it, the equivalent to trying to derive quantum physics and the wide variety of experimental evidence from some super-classical physics. This is not a new thing, you just seem to have found a way to do in using logical systems instead of matematical physics. The point is that it is equivalent!     Additionally, there is some good work that shows a very promising way of solving the emergence of time from timelessness by Prof. Kitada, but it is far over my paygrade to even attempt to traslate his work into your language. Thus I ask that you read what he has written and see if it makes some sense to you. This paper is, I think, a good place to start: http://www.kitada.com/timeV.html *** [BM] In general physicist does not even address this question (by naively relating belief in change with some physical change, but that leads to many difficulties as the UD argument is supposed to illustrate). *** [SPK]     You are very mistaken one this! Physicists are deeply interested in this question, even to the point that there are yearly conferences on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22problem+of+time%22+conference *** [BM] I will perhaps make other comments next week, but I must go now ... Best, Bruno PS What do you mean by "onward"? *** [SPK]     It is short for a battle cry:  "Onward into the Unknown", the motto of explorers. ;-) Onward! Stephen