## Advertising

Le 29-déc.-06, à 16:41, Jef Allbright a écrit :

Bruno - It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level epistemology.

`It is possible. Note that in general those who appreciates the`

`hypotheses I build on, does not like so much the conclusion, and vice`

`versa, those who like the conclusion does not like the way I got them`

`...`

But I don't know much about your "comp" so I'll begin reading.

`"Comp" is the old "mechanist philosophy" (Question to Milinda, Plato,`

`Descartes, Hobbes) revisited after the "creative explosion": the`

`discovery of the universal "turing" machine and the computer`

`theoretical laws they obey.`

`I propose also a reasoning (the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA))`

`showing that, contrary to a widespread belief (since the closure of`

`Plato Academy in 525 after JC), digital mechanism is epistemologically`

`incompatible with the belief that the mind emerges from some primary`

`substantial matter, but on the contrary the appearances of matter`

`emerges globally from an internal view of the number theoretical`

`reality. The UDA necessitates only a passive understanding of Church`

`thesis. Then I translate UDA in the language of a Universal Machine,`

`and thanks to the work of Post, Markov, Godel, Boolos, Goldblatt,`

`Visser etc. I show constructively how to derive the particular case of`

`"certainties" on the observation results (= more or less the`

`"probability one" bearing on our computational extensions) and I have`

`shown that those "probability one" gives arithmetical interpretation of`

`some quantum logic. I am working now to show why "nature" look like a`

`*quantum* computer in our immediate accessible neighborhood. I 'm stuck`

`on some mathematical difficulties and the progress are slow.`

> With increasing context of self-awareness, subjective values >increasingly resemble principles of the physical universe.Apparently you are even more optimistic than me. I just wish you arecorrect here. It is fuzzy because the term "resemble" is fuzzy.Yes, I was writing in broad strokes, just to give you the pattern, but not the detail that has been mentioned earlier. Humanity certainly could be within an evolutionary cul de sac.

Yes.

<snip>Since all events are the result of interactions followingthe laws of the physical universe,Hmmm... It is out of topic, but I don't believe this at all. Better Ican show to you that if "I" (or "You") are turing-emulable, then allevents, including the apparition and the development of the physicallaws are the result of the relation between numbers.For the sake of my argument I might better have said that all interactions seem to follow a consistent set of rules (which we see as the laws of the physical universe. It seems that you have some theory of a more fundamental layer having to do with numbers.

`Yes. I have many reasons to believe the laws of physics emerges from`

`the laws of numbers. My basic belief in this relies on computer`

`science/ cognitive science and quantum mechanics. But since the last`

`years I got independent evidences for this from knot theory, prime`

`number theory, integer partition theory. What is funny (and still`

`mysterious but less and less when looking in the details) is the`

`presence of the number 24 (or of its divisors) each time a deep`

`relation appears between number theory and physics. I will send an easy`

`illustration soon or later.`

Happy 2007, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---