Le 07-déc.-06, à 23:06, Tom Caylor a écrit :

> I was going to give my two cents when I was so rudely interrupted by
> more immediate reality: work.
> My opinion on the marketing aspect (as a mathematician and engineer,
> laugh here; then stop laughing and go to next statement;), would agree
> with Brent's, something like "Machine Theology" would be an
> eye-catching first book that introduces people to the mind-bending
> ideas, sort of like Penrose's Emperor's New Mind, I know that's not a
> good example.  But then there's the follow-up larger book (like
> Penrose's Road To Reality) that is intended to help with the actual
> integration of the new concepts into the existing body of knowledge, or
> the morphing of existing knowledge into the new paradigm (even though I
> still don't believe that your paradigm and mine are ultimately
> compatible, but you never know for sure ;)... ).  You should expect
> some major collisions between yours and existing paradigms, including
> finding out that major parts of your arguments, or all, are wrong,


I have believed a long time that I should be wrong, but I seriously 
begin to doubt that.
It would be a relief if someone could show I am wrong or even just show 
that some part of the argumentation is not well supported. But except 
for minor point this has never happened.
I could go back to pure number theory which I appreciate, not for the 
love of truth, but for the love of beauty ....


> just
> as Penrose has, and having to backpeddle or totally modify, or start
> from square one with the kernel of truth that remains after the
> collisions.


I don't want to look presomptuous, but there has been people very 
motivated in showing my work being wrong, but except for rumors nothing 
concrete has ever been provided.




> But in the end, you will have added to the advance of
> knowledge, just as I believe Penrose has in spite of his mistakes.


Sure. Penrose and Lucas did an important mistake which is recurring 
again. But logicians today are not interested in philosophy or 
physics---if only because it has been a big struggle for them to make 
logic accepted as a branch of pure mathematics----and they stop reading 
a paper once they see an error. Some papers can be rejected if they 
give too much motivation ....



> I
> envision that somewhere down the line somebody might write a book that
> takes the kernel of truth from your collisions and goes to the next
> step.  That's sort of what Penrose said he hopes happens with his Road
> to Reality.  This won't be it, but an example might be something like,
> "New Theory of Everything Proposes A Totally New Way Of Looking At The
> Whole Quantum Mechanics Vs. General Relativity Landscape".  Of course
> that would be in the context of how your paradigm effects the problems
> physicists are trying to solve.  But then there would be another book
> about "New Theory Of Everything Proposes A Totally New Way Of Looking
> At The Mind-Body Problem"... for the philosophers etc. It just seems
> that this whole process is just too big to try to get our minds around
> at one point in history.


Yes but you exaggerate a little bit too also (I know your point is 
laughing .... ).
You know I can summarize my thesis like this:

"If you are interested in the Truth, look deep inside your Self."

Now I am modern, and what I really say is:

"If you are interested in the Truth, and if you are too busy to look 
deep inside yourself, then you can program a Universal Machine to look 
deep inside her Self (and if you are too busy to write the program, 
download it on my web page, or copy the main algorithm from Boolos' 
book or Solovay's paper".


> (even though I
> still don't believe that your paradigm and mine are ultimately
> compatible, but you never know for sure ;)


It is still possible that we are compatible (or that you are compatible 
with comp). Just answer this question: could it be that your "personal 
God" is "yourself"?
About this, have you read books by Alan Watts?  Or by eastern religious 
people among those who tend toward the idea that "I am the unnameable", 
whatever "I" could refer temporarily ...
In that case, the apparent difference between you and me could be that 
I emphasize on the first and second hypostases (the zero and third 
person machine point of view), and you seem to emphasize, I guess like 
George Levy and David Nyman, on the third hypostase (the first person 
pov). It is something which I find extraordinary: that the first person 
inherites the main "godlike" attribute: total unnameability. And the 
order of the hypostases is immaterial ...
Of course in our occidental country this move is rarely appreciated ....



> Of course I'm hoping for something like "New
> Theory Of Everything Finds A Meta-Correspondence (Called The
> Marchal-Caylor Correspondence) Between Logic And Logos"  (a la Galois
> Correspondence).  (you can laugh here without stopping...)

... thanks!

:)

Bruno



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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


Reply via email to