Le 14-févr.-06, à 05:19, danny mayes wrote (to Ben):

I doubt Marchal's ideas will be made widely known or popularized inthe foreseeable future.

This looks like an encouraging statement :-)

The problem isn't with the name of his theory, or with any problemwith Bruno per se beyondthis: There doesn't seem to be an easily reducible way to summarizethe theory in amanner that is digestible to anyone beyond the highly specialized insimilar fields.

`I doubt this. I would even say that highly specialized people have more`

`difficulties due to the lack of a panoramic view of the subject, and`

`the lack of knowledge in the adjacent fields. Logicians doesn't really`

`know the conceptual problem of QM. And Physicist rarely know what a`

`formal system is all about. Both are unaware of the mind-body problem,`

`etc.`

`Probably popularization is technically more easy (but professionally`

`more dangerous).`

`"My theory", in a first approximation, is just "Mechanism", the`

`doctrine that we are machine, in the sense that we cannot see any`

`difference once we are substituted at some level of description of`

`ourselves. That "theory" already appears in some ancient Indian and`

`chinese texts, and is often attributed to Descartes.`

`Somehow "my theory" is already popularized in many science-fiction`

`books and essays. Dennet and Hofstadter are quite close in the book`

`"Mind's I", which I recommend. They didn't see the first person comp`

`indeterminacy though. And, given that Hofstadter wrote an impressive`

`book on Godel's theorem, where he criticizes correctly the use of`

`Godel's incompleteness against mechanism, I thought awhile that it was`

`not even necessary I wrote my work. Almost like Judson Web, Hofstadter`

`sees that Godel's theorem could be a good news for Mechanism/Comp. My`

`work preceded those books for ten years, but has been trapped in a sort`

`of typically european bureaucratic nightmare which will make me`

`abandoning research for a while.`

`Have you read the "Mind's I" book? I think you could follow the UDA`

`argument easily if you have done that. The argument requires only some`

`passive understanding of what a digital universal machine (computer)`

`is.`

`I keep saying I have no theory. I have just a theorem or an argument`

`(informal and (hopefully) rigorous) according to which, if we take the`

`comp hyp. seriously enough then eventually physics should be`

`retrievable from [computer science + the amount of "theological faith"`

`needed for saying "yes" purposefully to the doctor].`

I certainly understand the basics of some of his ideas,

`If you understand the UDA, you get the point .... If not, you can`

`always ask questions or make critics.`

but when it gets into allhis logical analysis I just have never found myself willing to devotemyself to thetime required to really get into the detail of where he is comingfrom.

`... because the logical analysis does not add anything. The UDA shows`

`that comp entails that necessarily physics is a branch of computer`

`science (in a large sense).`

`The "logical analysis" is the beginning of an *actual* derivation of`

`physics from computer science. This *illustrates* how such a`

`derivation, which is made necessary by UDA, can *actually* be`

`undertaken. The logical analysis also shows the relative consistency of`

`the enterprise. Would Godel's theorem be false, i.e. would truth be`

`equal to provability, all "hypostases" would collapse into classical`

`logic. Thanks to Godel's theorem, they are all different.`

And Iwould consider myself highly interested in these topics and at leastreasonably intelligent.

`Do you have the little book by Smullyan "Forever Undecided"? It is a`

`very cute introduction to the logic G. Once you understand what is G,`

`you can understand all the other arithmetical hypostases (effective and`

`non effective person points of view, Theaetetical variants, see below).`

Even something as mundane as the MWI (to this group at least) runsinto abrickwall when presented to the layperson. You should see theconversationsI have with my wife. Tell people everything is made of strings. Orspace andtime can be warped and curved. They may not understand the science and math behind it at all, but at least you are speaking their language.

`I think you have too much imagination which make you think my work is`

`technically difficult. It isn't. In Brussels my work has been`

`criticized has being too much easy. Argument of the type: "my two years`

`old niece can do that!" (*).`

The world is not ready for his ideas.

`From -500 to +500, the world has been ready for quite similar Platonist`

`Questioning, I tend to think now. And actually Plotinus seem to have`

`got the main points with almost all details (without comp!). After:`

`just 1000 years of a sort of obscurity with respect to the fundamental`

`questioning, and so much religious or ideological brainwashing that in`

`some countries we can even no more suggest any idea capable of`

`questioning materialism. At least it *looks* like that.`

Even for the most part the world of scientists in my opinion.

`Perhaps. You should wait I submit a publication, though. All the papers`

`I have published so far has been ordered, and I try to get some more`

`technical confirmation, or infirmation perhaps, to submit a completed`

`version of my thesis. It could still take times(**), especially now`

`that I realize that it could be difficult just to find the accurate`

`journal ... I will send papers to the ArX.org soon or later. I am not`

`entirely satisfied by my presentations.`

Bruno

`(*) To be fair, those critics were coming from people defending some`

`political version of materialism which I have never find very`

`convincing. Those people are very powerful in France and Belgium, which`

`explains a bit of my academical isolation. Let me give you pieces of`

`evidences once and for all so that I will not need to bother the list`

`with that "little history". For example, in 1998, I got a price in`

`France celebrating annually the five best PhD theses in the french`

`speaking world. See`

http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/janv99.html

`The price consisted in part in the publication of the thesis, and`

`indeed in 2000, the publishing of the book has been publicly announced:`

`see the picture:`

`http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/prixlemonde/`

`A%20paraitre%20en%202000.jpg`

`Now all the books on that document have been published, but not mine,`

`and without any explanations. Worse, they will eventually suppress me`

`from the list of the winner... See:`

http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/ancienslaureats.html

`We are still living in an Orwelian sort of world. In west europa,`

`apparently, we don't have a solid Berlin Wall to make it fall ...`

`Now, in France, an ex-minister of education has written a book entitled`

`"The defeat of Plato", and I guess I have also underestimated the`

`ambient AntiPlatonism. But I don't care. If needed I will come back`

`next Millenium ;-)`

`(**). Let me confide a more happy and recent event, to finish on a more`

`optimistic mode. And let me take this as an opportunity to make a sort`

`of Plotinian summary of "my thesis".`

`As you know the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) is a sequence of`

`thought experiments showing, from the comp assumption, that physics`

`should be ultimately derivable by some sort of measure on all`

`computational histories which exists beyond time and space in`

`(arithmetical) Platonia. Then, I interview a sufficiently rich (with`

`respect to provability) introspective universal machine about that`

`"measure". This consists in presenting the UDA to the machine. The main`

`difficulties consists in defining what is an "history". It cannot be a`

`mere computation: it must be a computation as seen from some first`

`person, or first person plural, perspective, like in the UD Argument.`

`Now, it is natural to modelize the first person by the "knower". It is`

`the one who feels incorrigibly the sensations she is living. The`

`simplest way to transform a mere opinion into knowledge has already`

`been proposed by Plato in his Theaetetus: it consist in defining it by`

`True Opinion, where the opinion is presented in company of a`

`justification or proof. Such an opinion can be modelized by the`

`provability predicate of Godel, hereby written B. So Bp is an`

`abbreviation of "p is provable by a (fixed) machine". We suppose the`

`machine is sound, so Bp -> p, by definition. But (and this is the`

`solution of the problem I gave to Tom) although it is true that Bp`

`implies p, it is just an easy consequence of Godel's theorem that the`

`sound machine is not able to prove that truth. So although the`

`Theaetetical trick of defining the knowledge of the proposition p by Bp`

`& p, looks irrelevant (because Bp is really equivalent to Bp & p), it`

`is not because that truth is not provable by the machine, and so, it`

`will define indeed a natural candidate for a, possibly rough, notion of`

`knowledge. And the same applies for the notion of`

`provability-and-consistency: Bp & Dp, and even for the notion of`

`true-provability-and-consistency: Bp & Dp & p.`

`Now provability-and-consistency is needed to define a notion of`

`"probability one" on the possible extensions of the machine, as the UDA`

`suggests, and should indeed give the logic of probability one on the`

`computational histories, at least in the comp situation where "p" will`

`corresponds to states accessible by the Universal Dovetailer.`

`So we get 8 hypostases (viewed as generalization of the notion of`

`person point of view, so as to include the truth represented by p). The`

`primary one:`

p (truth, the one) Bp (intellect, third person) Bp & p (soul, first person) and the secondary one: Bp & Dp (intelligible matter, observation, first person plural)

`Bp & Dp & p (sensible matter, where "objective reality not only kicks`

`back but can even hurt).`

`Why 8 ? It looks like 5, isn't it? No. Because the machine which`

`introspect herself will soon discover its own Godel's theorem: "if I`

`cannot prove the falsity then I cannot prove that fact, that I cannot`

`prove a falsity", i.e. ~Bf -> ~B(~Bf). Or Dt -> ~BDt. So the machine is`

`able to discover the gigantic gap between the divine (Unameable) Truth,`

`and its terrestrial effective provability ability. So the second`

`hypostase divides itself in a terrestrial part: the terrestrial`

`intellect, and a divine part, the divine intellect.`

`Solovay's theorem states that the terrestrial intellect is described by`

`the logic G, and that the divine intellect is described by the logic`

`G*. By a kind of miracle, the soul does not divide. It is the only`

`hypostase which is both terrestrial and divine, in some sense. The`

`price is high: she cannot indentify herself to any machine or even`

`angels, or anything third person describable.The two secondary`

`hypostases does divide themselves in terrestrial and divine part. This`

`will help to modelize the difference between Qualia and Quanta.`

`To test that theory, we need to compare the logic of Matter with the`

`empirical logic of Matter (quantum logic).`

`Well, for this we need to find axiomatizations of the secondary`

`hypostases (terrestrial and divine).`

`... and I have been stuck somehow on that problem since my PhD thesis.`

`Still, in it, I have been able to already got "quantum" theorems`

`(called LASE in the list) and even theorem prover for those logics (but`

`they are intractable).`

`The happy event is that I got last week the visit of a little genius in`

`logic who *did* solve the axiomatization problem for the the two logics`

`of sensible matter (terrestrial and divine). Actually, in my term, he`

`found a cute sort of "modal Fourier transform" between the intellect`

`(described by G) and the intelligible matter (described by Z in the`

`Lille Thesis). Actually I strike my head on the wall, 'cause`

`technically this "fourier transform" was right in front of my eyes, but`

`I did not seen it until he shows it to me in a two pages mathematical`

`poem, which I intend to put on my web pages). So G thinks "particles"`

`and Z thinks already "waves", if we granted that LASE is indeed a`

`symptom of the presence of a purely arithmetical quantum logic (which`

`can be defended formally, accepting some modal interpretation of`

`(quantum) probabilities in the literature (Barnaba, Goldblatt, Dalla`

`Chiaria). From that Fourier transform he succeds to define easily G in`

`Z, from which axiomatizations follow). He did not find a comparable`

`inversible transformation for the "sensible matter", though ...`

`I am still a long way to complete the derivation of the comp-(or`

`weaker) physics, so as to test it from empiry, but a genuine step has`

`been done last week, thanks to him.`

(I will answer Ben tomorrow). http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/