Hi John,

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

> 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

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,



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 

Reply via email to