Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:39, Brent Meeker a écrit :

I do infer from experience that there is some reality. Sometime ago, Bruno wrote: "Hence a Reality, yes. But not necessarily a physical reality. Here is the logical dependence: NUMBERS -> "MACHINE DREAMS" -> PHYSICAL -> HUMANS -> PHYSICS -> NUMBERS."

Maybe my interpretation of this is different than Bruno's, but I take it to mean our explanations can start anywhere in this loop and work all the way around. So numbers can be explained in terms of physics (c.f. William S. Cooper) and physical reality can be explained in terms of numbers (c.f. Bruno Marchal?). These explanations are all models, representations we create. They are tested against experience, so they are not arbitrary. They must be logical since otherwise self-contradiction will render them ambiguous. Whether any these, or which one, is "really real" is, I think, a meaningless question.

OK. This shift us back in the old threads concerning a possible theory of everything (TOE). To be less misleading I should have written:


The difference between "NUMBERS" and "HUMAN'S NUMBER" is akin to the difference between an electron before life appears on this planet, and an electron as object of study by a human physician.

Recall that my point is the giving of an argument showing that physics can (and must with comp) be derived from number theory, and this in a very specific way, making comp testable.

It is the difference between the following theories intended as TOEs:

1) Logic + Number + SWE + wave reduction (= Copenhague's theory of everything). [Unintelligible, imo]

2) Logic + Number + SWE + comp (= Everett-Deutsch's theory of everything) [Conceptually simpler, to say the least.]

3) Logic + Number + comp (= your servitor's theory). [Conceptually even much simpler, and testable]

The main advantage of "3)": due to the technical difference between provability and truth in self-reference, the theory can provide an explanation for both quanta and qualia. Of course the quanta could still behave too strangely with respect to experimental data. If this is confirmed comp will be refuted, but that is the main interesting point, imo.

(By logic I mean first order predicate logic, by "number" I mean Robinson arithmetic, SWE = Schroedinger equation)

The question is not which theory is "really real", but which theory is the most intelligible with respect to logic, the problem we want to solve and the empirical data. Today, there is no doubt that QM (SWE) is far better for predicting measurable relation between observable numerical data, but is hopeless with regard to qualia (despite it already said something highly non trivial (but mainly negative)on the life/death mortality problem).

Perhaps we can come back on this later.


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