Thanks, Bruno, I appreciate, because I don't think
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)
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


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?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to