Please see some remarks interleft between ---------lines. John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 totality. 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 ... -------------------- JM: "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. -------------------- JM: 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, though). ----------------- JM: 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. ----------------- Bruno 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. ------------- John --------- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---