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
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
--- 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
> > the human mind could invent for reductionist
> 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
> 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
> procedure. Understanding comp needs some amount of
> (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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at