Le 16-juil.-06, à 18:07, John M a écrit :

> Bruno:
> 1. And if someones (1-?)personal "taste" does not
> accept the (and only) math ways?
> Can I say: I am right and the rest of the world is
> wrong?

I will ask her/him why. If she/he answers me that she believes in some 
strong form of NON-COMP, I will say ok, no problem, etc.
But if she pretends to accept comp then SHE MUST be happy. Why? because 
the "only math", at the third person description level, gives a 
guarantee that, strictly speaking, the "only math" philosophy is false. 
Indeed, once you take comp seriously enough, you can give a complete 
3-person (scientific) justification that the first person is beyond all 
possible mathematical theories. In some sense, Godel's incompleteness 
and Loewenheim theorems already justified this for the "natural number" 
or "finiteness" quale;  like I have tried to  illustrated recently 

I insist on that: comp is a vaccine against a very large variety of 
reductionism. People who believes that comp is a reductionism are in 
general confusing comp with "comp + (weak) materialism". I recall weak 
materialism is Aristotle's doctrine according to which there is a 
primitive matter at the ontological bottom. This (comp+mat) *is* 
reductionist, and could lead to first person eliminativism.

Of course this lead to some counter-intuitive facts: like the fact that 
the first person plenitude is bigger than anything we can conceive and 
still,  is "contained" in the standard interpretation of the natural 
numbers with usual addition and multiplication. This is a mathematical 
fact: many mathematical structure are like that: from outside they look 
minuscule and miserable; from inside they look immeasurably gigantic. 
Later we will perhaps get the opportunity to say more on this 
phenomenon which I called a long time ago the Wonderland or Yellow 
Submarine effects because they are poetically well illustrated in those 
pieces of art.

Even just a book has already that feature. From outside it looks like a 
finite volume cylinder, but when you open it, it could be a path to the 
infinite understanding of everything ...
'course this is only an analogy.

> 2.You mention Occam, I was in love with him for many
> years. Now: I consider his razor-cut "essence" as a
> simulacron, a limited model of the content I just want
> to consider (talk abouit), keaving out any further
> ramifications as 'only obscuring the clear view'.

My heart is with you, and this is probably the reason I take years to 
present my work without invoking Occam Razor (and that is why the 
Movie-graph should be included in UDA).
Still, there is a sense we *use* OCCAM all the time relatively to the 
"empirical world", for example we believe that if we take a fork on a 
table, we tend to believe the simplest explanation for such a 
possibility, like "there is fork on the table". And we don't believe in 
invisible horse pulling the cars or things like that. The use of Occam 
principle's is also easily explainable with Darwin: costly theories 
And the eighth step is made easier with Occam, so, at least for 
beginners, I indulge in invoking it. But strictly speaking we can avoid 
it, and that is why I talk of a proof (that comp -> reversal), not just 
an argument, still less a speculation. Like the proof that sqrt(2) is 
not rational: you don't need Occam for that.

> Do we want to "see clearly" the part we want to see
> clearly? Are "all possible cases" the selection we
> want (or can) include?

By "we" what do you mean?
"Us" the Hungarians?
"Us" the Europeans?
"Us" the occidentals?
"Us" the humans?
"Us" the homeotherm animals ?  (about those who dream according to 
"Us" the living creature?
"Us" the conscious creature?
"Us" the Lobian machine?
"Us" the machines?
"Us" the self-referentially correct machines
"us" the self-referentially correct entities
"Us" the numbers (who can't really believe that their are numbers)?
"Us" the persons?

When I use "us" in a reasoning, I always mean by default the lobian 
machines/numbers (assuming comp explicitly or implicitly), or their 
associated first person.
The "all possible cases" is then handled thanks to Church 
thesis/Godel's miracle/Post Law. Reductionism is defeated through the 
mathematical theory of our (cf above) mathematical and non mathematical 
3 and 1 limitations.
Comp and Church thesis makes it possible to study the mathematical 
structure describing "our" ignorance, and this is useful given that the 
UD-Argument shows that the physical laws emerge from that universal 
intrinsic lobian ignorance.

I stop here. I think I should made some effort to make shorter posts!



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