Le 02-mai-07, à 17:49, John Mikes a écrit :
> One wisdom above all others consists of formulating questions which by
> their wording eliminate the answers. Your question starts:
> "What do you mean by "...our..."?
> The classic reply: "Who is asking?" -- It is you and me and all "who"
> we can consider normal minds to converse with.
> I try to be patient as long as I am around, but cannot take seriously
> a "LM" that 'knows' everything 'unknowable' and TELLS US all in an
> interview. It is all still in 'our' mind (imagination?) content.
> Why do you not 'extract' everything at once? Why piecemeal small
> portions of epistemic enrichment? All questions discussed on this and
> any other forum could be answered. Why are we so shy? (Maybe life
> would be intolerably boring knowing all the answers at once?)
> (I got it:
> it is the 'mathematically discernible' gap ...so is it a limitation?
Yes. But the L machine can see its own limitations. The UD Argument
explains why we have to expect physics rising from some geometry
bearing on that limitation.
> and only its 'fears', 'hopes', (=suggestions, fantasies?) we(?) in our
> feeble mind work/content can produce similar unreal ideas.)
> Is the 'mathematical' included to justify the imperfections of a LM?
> - No, I did not really ask that.
> Why did a LM not disclose 'itself' 3000 years ago?
I guess that happens. There are some relations between so-called
mystics or inward-looking truth researchers and lobian machine.
> with ALL the answers?
> Why still teasing us even now? A Sadist Loebian Machine!
> Does it have 'rules' on 'how much' to disclose in an interview? Who's
> rules? the Allmighty? but that is the LM itself!
> You see, I am confused. (ha ha) good for me.
I will come back on the interview. I have to answer Mark Geddes'
question on Tegmark little three-diagram first, and this could help to
relate the interview and the search for a TOE. Indeed I have to explain
the many nuances between the notion of computability, provability,
knowability, observability, etc. All that in the arithmetical frame,
... and without being too much technical! The problem is that those
nuances *are* technical! I am using technics here because our
intuitions are misleading.
Just note this. No Lobian Machine, even sound and ultra-powerful can
ever be "Allmighty". The contrary is true: the machine is somehow
extremely modest. If you ask a sound (lobian) machine if she will ever
say a bullshit, she answers that [either she will say a bullshit or she
*might* say a bullshit]. This is a form of Godel's theorem. Lob's
theorem shows in a deeper way that the L machine is really
modesty-driven all along. The machine can also prove to herself that
the more she learns, the less she knows. Her science makes her more
ignorant, and lead her to bigger doubts, and thus also to bigger
possibilities (relatively to her most probable computational history).
Also, I use the term Lobian machine, in honor of Löb, but also as a
shorter expression for "a self-referentially correct machine having
enough beliefs in elementary arithmetic".
I remind you that in some older post you were willing to accept the
idea that either you are yourself lobian, or that you can identify a
lobian machine living in you (as far as you accept enough elementary
Recall also I am not defending the comp hyp., I am just trying to show
that the comp hyp. has (startling) observable and thus testable
consequences (cf also both the UDA and the neoplatonists like
> Wishing you the best
The best for you too. Hope this will help you to keep patient, thanks,
> On 5/2/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear John,
>> Le 30-avr.-07, à 20:57, John Mikes a écrit :
>> > mind is (mentality of) the unlimited TOE and its vision(s), while
>> > (the somehow limited contraption including the tool for our
>> thinking -
>> > call it brain tissue, physical, digital comp, or - horribile dictu:
>> > arithmetical - anyway within our limited mentality) is an aspect
>> > (partial) of it.
>> I asked you this before: what do you mean by *our* in *our* limited
>> Do you mean the Hungarians?
>> The Americans?
>> The Humans?
>> The Apes?
>> The Animals?
>> The inhabitants of Earth?
>> The inhabitants of the Solar System?
>> The inhabitants of the Milky Way galaxy? (they are so much Milky Way
>> Minded, you know!)
>> The sound lobian machines?
>> The omega-consistent lobian machines?
>> The consistent lobian machines?
>> The lobian machines?
>> The lobian entities?
>> ... ?
>> > Problem: to reach the total from the limitational part - without the
>> > possession (understanding) of the missing rest of it.
>> This is exactly, if I get your point, what I think can be done about
>> the lobian entities, which, thanks to the mathematically describable
>> gap between what the machine can know and what the machine can hope
>> (of fear for, bet, etc.) it is possible to get some large and testable
>> overview of the comp consequences for any TOEs based on the comp hyp.
>> Including "physical consequences".
>> Hope this can motivate you for the "interview" of the L machine (or L
>> entity), but be patient, thanks;
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at