Bruno, I liked what George Levy wrote (19 July 2006):

> As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything > using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP > which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.< A bit lesser the continuation: > I came up independently with my own concept involving a > generalization of relativity to information theory ( my background is > engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points. > Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my > ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it > feels right.< because engineering and physics (as we know them from past times) are also based on mathematical logic - (if not on straightforward math!) and that puts George in a similar basket with you (No peiorative tone intended, or involved!) To your advice to seek a mathematician (as gossip has it: Einstein relied on the math-help of Goedel): it would serve to "anchor" George into YOUR basket (sorry George, I believe you are way above such fallibilities as to be 'anchored'). Why not consult (and not just educate into YOUR ways) somebody with a different view (background thinking?) from the rigorous mathematical concepts? I still believe that there is more than just 'numbers' and processes in the existence with different basis than just comp. I don't believe you can "PROVE" that there is nothing else but "math-numbers-comp", unless you call "all other possibilities" with such NAMES. Name-calling is futile. "I can arrive there in a 'little zillion' steps" is fairy tale - without at least some details on the 'HOWs'. (Old cliche: the validity of a legal argument). I still wait impatiently for your 'roadmap' communications and preserve my mind to accept it as maybe proving me wrong. I hope I will not miss them in the maze of posts now swarming this list - really beyond my reading capabilities. I would love to watch (and find) a 'subject' preserved for YOUR line eg as: "ROADMAP" with nobody just clicking 'Reply' to make posts as the same subject 350 times. Grandmotherishly yours John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:59 AM Subject: NOT YET THE ROADMAP You should perhaps try to find a mathematician in your neighborhood for helping you to formalize a bit your approach. I can give you book advices on information theory if you are interested. Unfortunately the relation between information theory and logic are not so easy. I know that Abramski works on it, and Devlin wrote a book on information in some logician sense (this is not yet standard), you could search "Devlin" on Amazon for the reference. In this setting quantum information theory is also hard to avoid. There are many good books too. <- Skipped: Copied above -> > > I believe that what you are saying is right, however I am having > some trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would > help if you outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the > roadmap without having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at > every turn even though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am > sure. For example you could use several levels of explanation: a first > level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second > level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to > your colleagues. BM: Like I just said to Stathis, I have some difficulties. But this is really because I want that roadmap post to be comprehensible by the grandmother. Thanks for being patient, Bruno --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---