Hi John, Le 10-août-06, à 17:52, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :

## Advertising

> > 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.< Mmh... OK, but comp is just the daughter of the old mechanist philosophy, which appears already in "The question of Milinda", an old Greco-buddhist text I love so much. Comp makes "mechanism" more mathematical by its insistence on digitalness, and that indeed makes it easier to reason mathematically. Then comp can help to tackle mathematically "not-comp" (and that is how I found that all the G-G* stuff remains correct and even complete for much weaker version of "comp": it works for a vast class of "angels" (machine with actual infinite reasoning abilities) and even "gods", for which G and G* remains correct (but no more complete) and even on many supergods etc. Only the big unameable one seems to escape the limitation of self-reference, but only by loosing those self-reference abilities. Here I am very close to Ennead V 6 where Plotinus criticizes the attribution of thought to the "first God" (Plato's one or Good). > 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. It is NOTmy goal to prove that there is nothing else but numbers and their relation. But I do pretend indeed that ONCE we *assume* comp, then the existence of something else is undecidable, and physics + psychology can be explained from numbers, and, indeed that the comp constraints on physics are such that they makes comp testable (refutable). > 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). Name-calling "per se" is worse than futile, it is a nuisance. Unnecessary jargon slows progress and can even accelerate regress. > > I still wait impatiently for your 'roadmap' communications and > preserve my > mind to accept it as maybe proving me wrong. As I told you many times, I am not sure you are wrong at all. The difference between me and you is that you take into account the "human limitations", and I take into account the vaster "machine limitations" (those are "vaster" because I *assume* comp, and so humans are machine and humans inherits machine's limitations). Such limitations are mathematically non trivial (that's the Post Turing Markov Godel ... discovery), and that is what I exploit. The worst situation for you would be that I eventually prove comp wrong, in which case I will have less reason to believe what you say (having then no more clues on *our* limitations). Thanks for telling me you are waiting impatiently the roadmap. I progress. Don't expect too much in the sense that, as an ancient list participant you will see I will not add things which I have not already explain more than one time on this list (and in my papers). Actually I will try to say less (that is the difficulty), and to take into account the last conversations. And to recall acronym as people regularly asks me out of line. > 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. This is hardly avoidable, at least until we clearly agree on our disagreements (at least). Also I find those last conversations rather interesting. They do clarify the disagreements indeed, and even begin to separate in a better way terminological disagreements, methodological disagreements, and plausibly deeper one. > > Grandmotherishly yours ;) Best regards, Bruno 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---