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.
At the 1989(?) German Complexity Conference Rainer Zimmermann had a paper on
"Pre-Geometrical" world-origin. This instigated my idea about (MY)
Plenitude, which is neither (pre?)geometrical, nor preceding a 'time' -
nonexistent in it. Geometry is a consequence of spatial order, so it has to
be 'invented' in a post-BigBang universe of at least spatial arrangements.
In congruence with your later remark that physics stems from geometry. At
least 2nd phase in my narrative. Consequence of things I am looking for.(and
still predecessor to physics as you stated).
> Is the 'mathematical' included to justify the imperfections of a LM?
JM now: that was a trap. Sorry. (see my next line that I did not 'really'
ask that) -
You probably did not realize that "mathematical" was said to be 'included'
into something not containing it. Or is "numbers-based" not (really)
((See my confusion?))
> 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.
(JM: remarkable. And i can understand why those information-bits were
explained in a false way: according to the general epistemic level of the
when I condoned the chance to be a LM it was not in your presently spelled
"a self-referentially correct machine having enough beliefs in elementary
because I have insufficient belief in the kind of arithmetic base (not only
because of my insufficient math, but in other - rather philosophical -
aspects as well), so I may consider myself a 'sort of' LM imagining a more
advanced basis then numbers. In my sci-fi my 'aliens' had direct
thought-transfer in meaning and concept, communication was unfettered from
quantitative aspects. If I accept a 'fundamental' role of 'numbers'
(I still do not know what to understand as such) it is at the - or before -
'geometrical' level, however definitely - as you said - pre-physical. But
consequential - subsequent to the level I used to the formulation of
universes. Generatee, not generator.
PS: Bruno, I submit my ideas to you only to show a different position - not
to "beat" yours. To "round up' your theory in a discussion with a different
If you find it useless, tell me: I will stop sending them. J
On 5/3/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
> Certainly not.
> > 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
> arithmetical truth).
> 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,
> > John
> > 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
> >> body
> >> > (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
> >> mentality?
> >> 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!)
> >> or
> >> 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
> >> for
> >> (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;
> >> Best,
> >> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at