Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 09-août-06, à 18:12, Tom Caylor a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course I have a problem with the word "universe" and especially
> >> with
> >> the expression "being inside a universe". The reason is that I think
> >> comp forces us to accept we are supported by an infinity of
> >> computations and that the 1-(plural and singular) appearance of the
> >> universe emerges from that. cf UDA.
> >>
> >> Bruno
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I haven't been following this thread, but this caught my attention.
> > Bruno, how can you have a real "problem" with something based on the
> > fact that it seems to contradict the comp assumption?  I thought that
> > you make a point to stress that you only assume comp for purposes of
> > argument to see where it leads.
> You are right. It is just that I feel somehow guilty to always mention
> the comp. hyp.
>  From now on, you should always interpret me, when I say "I think ...",
> by we can proved under the comp. assumption that ....


> > Are you implying that you personally
> > have faith in comp to the point that words that don't agree with the
> > comp assumption actually give you a "problem"?  Or is the problem
> > caused by a personal belief that is outside of the comp assumption, but
> > that is manifested when talking about comp, if you follow me?
> About my personal opinion on comp, I am still going through the four
> days:
> The good one where I hope that comp is true and believe that comp is
> true; or when I hope comp to be false, and I believe it to be false.
> The bad one where it is the reverse.
> The problem is that comp almost entails such oscillations. Indeed,
> although I do not insist on that point I must admit there is something
> a little bit diabolical in comp (and which is similar to some godelian
> sentence) which is that comp predicts that the first person attached to
> a machine really cannot believe or know that comp is true. Strictly
> speaking comp is unbelievable. No consistent machine can take comp for
> granted, and that is why eventually saying "yes" to a doctor (for an
> artificial body) have to be based on an act of faith

But isn't it true that we can't take anything for granted in an
absolute sense?  Isn't that part of the nature of belief?  I don't see
how something that is a good candidate for a model of reality can be
impossible to believe, unless it is impossible to think about it.  If
you can't believe comp then how can you test it?  If we do some tests
and conclude that the tests refute comp, how can we be sure?  My point
is that we can't be 100% sure, but we can believe.  On the other hand,
I think that belief doesn't have much meaning until the "rubber meets
the road" and the belief has implications to how we live life.
Oscillating doesn't get us closer to truth.  But I believe in a
"personal" truth that solves this problem.

> (and that is also
> why I think it is better (more honest) to put "comp" in theology rather
> than in, say, psychology, like I was used to do before our
> conversation-thread on theology.
> It is diabolical in the sense that when someone tell me "I don't
> believe in comp", well, strictly speaking, he confirms comp (but I
> *must* remain silent, or else I have to be more explicit on the G/G*
> differentiation and the way to translate the comp hyp itself in the
> language of arithmetic, but for this I have to dwelve a little bit more
> in the technics).
> Bruno
> PS Apology for letting you with some unsolved problem concerning the Wi
> and the Fi. I propose we come back on this latter (OK?). Meanwhile I
> suggest you could read the wonderful introduction to recursion theory
> made by N. J. Cutland, which is quite readable by undergraduate in
> math:
> redirect=true
> I see you can buy it together with the "bible" of recursion theory, the
> book by Hartley Rogers, which, imo, is the book which exploits in the
> best possible manner Church's Thesis.

OK.  I will be content with following whatever you have for the roadmap
for now.  I may read the Cutland book if I can afford the time
investment.  I should at least probably try to get my own answers to my
technical (but introductory) questions.  Thanks for your willingness to


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