Thanks, Bruno, I appreciate, because I don't think that I am the only one misunderstanding (what a euphemism!) the concepts you so naturally apply. The point(S) that come up with your preliminary:
I don't think we identify reductionism the same way. I formulated it to my worldview - irrespective of those 30-60 different identifications findable in literature, and Kolmogorov's complexity (who is basically a mathematically thinking savant) is for sure different from my intuitive concept adjusted somewhat to the late Robert Rosen's position. I want to go along with your ideas, because I find your way of mindwork appreciable with all the differences to my ways (No.1: the 'mind-body' problem which I do not condone im 'my' complexity - wider than just a person). (No.2 may be your earlier remark that you "learned" the math as applied in modern (i.e. quantified?) science and this kidnapped your thinking into (my) reductionist flavors: a quantity IS reduced into a limited model). So I wish you a happy Easter and am looking forward to reading your explanations brought up by the Easter Bunny. John PS: does MWI has a version of the Jesus Christ replicas in other universes? Apologies to the believers! J --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 11-avr.-06, à 00:19, John M a écrit : > > > Comp? I always considered it the - so far - best > ways > > the human mind could invent for reductionist > thinking. > > > I am too busy this week to comment this delicate > point. I will explain > later some basic think in computer science which are > needed, not only > to get some light on comp in general and the UD (and > G), but also to > clarify question about Kolmogorov algorithmic > complexity (or Solovay, > Chaitin one(*)). I hope that I will succeed to open > your mind with the > idea that comp is not only not reductionist but that > comp gives a sort > of vaccine against a very vast set of possible > reductionism. > The price is the realization that we don't know what > numbers really > are, or what machines are capable of. > > But I cannot explain this without saying more on the > diagonalization > procedure. Understanding comp needs some amount of > understanding > (theoretical) comp...uter science. > > A+ B. > > (*) cf Jesse: > > I have a vague memory that there was some result > showing the > > algorithmic > > complexity of a string shouldn't depend too > strongly on the details of > > the > > Turing machine--that it would only differ by some > constant amount for > > any > > two different machines, maybe? Does this ring a > bell with anyone? > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
