Please see some remarks interleft between ---------lines.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)

Le 05-oct.-06, à 13:55, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :

> Can we 'emulate' totality? I don't think so.

I don't always insist on that but with just the "Church thesis" part of
comp, it can be argued that we can emulate the third person describable
totality, and indeed this is what the Universal Dovetailer do.

The key thing, but technical (I was beginning to explain Tom and
George), is that such an emulation can be shown to destroy any
reductionist account of that totality, and still better, make the first
person totality (George's first person plenitude perhaps) infinitely
bigger (even non computably bigger, even unameable) than the 3 person
There is a Skolem-Carroll phenomena: the first person "inside" view of
the 3-totality is infinitely bigger than the 3-totality, like in the
"Wonderland" where a tree can hide a palace ...

    "my" reductionism is simple: we have a circle of knowledge base and view
the world as limited INTO such model. Well, it is not. The reductionist view
enabled homo to step up into technological prowess but did not support an
extension of understanding BEYOND the (so far) acquired knowledge-base. We
simply cannot FIND OUT what we don't know of the world.
Sciences are reductionistic, logic can try to step out, but that is simple
sci-fi, use fantasy (imagination?) to bridge ignorance.
I am stubborn in "I don't know what I don't know".

> Can we copy the total,
> unlimited wholeness?

Not really. It is like the quantum states. No clonable, but if known,
preparable in many quantities. At this stage it is only an analogy.

> I don't think so.
> What I feel is a restriction to "think" within a model and draw
> conclusions from it towards beyond it.

Mmmh... It is here that logician have made progress the last century,
but nobody (except the experts) knows about those progress.

Those "experts" must know that it is not confirmable even true.
That is why 'they' keep it to themselves.

> Which looks to me like a category-mistake.

It looks, but perhaps it isn't. I agree it seems unbelievable, but
somehow,we (the machine) can jump outside ourself ... (with some risk,

Jump outside our knowledge? it is not 'ourselves', it is ALL we know and
outside this is NOTHINGNESS for the mind to consider. Blank.
This is how most of the religions came about. Provide a belief.


PS Er..., to Markpeaty and other readers of Parfit: I think that his
use of the term "reductionist" is misleading, and due in part to his
lack of clearcut distinction between the person points of view.


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