----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

Drear Bruno
I will reply to your comment to me on-list - this is a private remark.
I leave part of your reply to Marc here to refer to personally.
See please, after your signature
>(from your post:)
>> Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not
>> yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape
>> (as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of hell,
>> or the state of the fallen soul: the fourth hypostase
> Very funny.  So... I take it you don't like String Theory and think
> loop quantum gravity is the way the truth and the light? ;)

Well, you should not infer this from the fact that I suspect "string
theories" appears with the 4th hypostases, given that I am rather proud of
having isolated them.  If you look to "Conscience and Mecanisme" and to the
Lille thesis you will see that at that time I was (wrongly) believing that
physics could not occur but in the 4th and 5th hypostases. I thought that
S4Grz1 collapses. Since then I have been able to prove that the 3rd
hypostase does not collapse (under the comp restriction) but that they
already defines an arithmetical quantization (that is: proves the main
"physical modal formulas:
p -> BDp and Bp ->
p), and I still don't know if this is a good new, except that it shows
that the pure first person (the "soul") has already a foot in "Matter".
But that soul's physics is like a pure physics completely detached of
any "background dependence", and at first sight it is a good place for
something resembling "Loop Quantum Gravity".
The fourth and fifth hypostases, nevertheless, gives the only physical
modalities which split through the G/G* distinction so that only them can be
used for relating the non communicable qualia with the sharable quanta. Also
they predicts many many exotical geographies, and currently, through the
Moonshine Mystery + modular speculations, are closer to the strings
To be sure the "experimental physicist in me" (if there is any) has no
competence for judging Loop versus String arguments. On the contrary, the
many hypostatic nuances forced by the quantization of
incompleteness (defined by the p-> BDp + inverse Goldblatt transform) makes
me willing to believe that both Loops and Strings are correct,  but does not
address the same problem.
> I'm prepared to believe that space and particles are not fundamental
> but are emergent.  However Bruno, I'm not yet convinced the same is
> true for time.  I don't see how time can be removed from our
> descriptions of reality.  I'll read the things you mention at some
> point.
This is a bit weird because there has always been a tradition since
Pythagoras, Plato, ..., Einstein, ... to consider that time is not part
of the ontology (except under the form of arithmetical induction axioms
(which I already put in the epistemology)).
In general people are more "shocked" when I say that comp force space to be
emergent than when I say that time is emergent.
Note also that I don't remove time from the description of reality, I
remove time from reality, if only because I recover time in the
description of reality possible for the self-introspecting machine.

The second part is mostly congruent with how I feel. The first part,
however... (I got stuck e.g. with the term: "nth hypostase" - etc.)
Some time ago I had a glimps of what your and debate-partners wrote about,
if not in its desirable understanding. This 1st part of your reply to
Mark? - I read it 2-3 times and have no idea what you are talking about.
It is a phenomenon which grew lately widening the gap of my mental tuning
into what you are discussing. I confess: I did not follow some of the recent
threads, because there were so many posts and I simply could not find the
time (physical and mental endurance) to even read them. (My mailbox is
time-consuming in opening replying and even deleting posts.

Please, give up on me, the 'gap' is too big as far as your theory vs. me is
concerned. I will 'talk into certain topics' carefully from my point of
view, not as an argument with YOUR theoretical positions.
In those explanations you suggested I find more and more features to look
up - and if I did so, they were not explanatory to me, rather full of
further concepts I could not come to grips with.
When I was religious (50-60 years ago) I would have said that your 'numbers'
are God. You wrote: WE are god, which I condone better.
I am not satisfied if
     "the numbers - or: the buttler DID IT"
If you know this slogan). I cannot step out from my own mental capabilities
into a more capable medium, I rather confess and live with the limitations I
I don't let my fantasy loose, because it is restricted by the present level
of knowledge-base (epistemy) and we really cannot foresee the further
occurrences (in science/thought as well).
    Who would have thought about 'comp' in 1930AD?
    or even thought about the Multiverse - in 1390AD?
Sorry for such pessimistic letter, I don't want to burden you with trying to
"make me understand".  I keep looking at the list and if something looks
like I can add a thought to, I will, but there are topics I must give up on.
I apologize if I don't and get carried away.

Maybe this letter is contributing to your view about acceptability of your
ideas and necessary augmentation in your arguments (- as you explained once)
how and why some of your audience does not go 'with you'. You may be right
to be some 200 years ahead of the current 'academic thinking' level.

Have a good time and sorry for this long letter



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