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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to