Appreciate.
.....
BM:
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.
JM:
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).
*
JM..:..
> Is the 'mathematical' included to justify the imperfections of a LM?
BM:
Yes.
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)
mathematical?
((See my confusion?))
*
> Why did a LM not disclose 'itself' 3000 years ago?<
BM:
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
era).
*
JM now:
when I condoned the chance to be a LM it was not in your presently spelled
out way:
 "a self-referentially correct machine having enough beliefs in elementary
arithmetic".
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.

John M

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
stance.
 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?
>
> Yes.
>
> > - 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
> Plotinus).
>
> >
> > Wishing you the best
>
> The best for you too. Hope this will help you to keep patient, thanks,
>
> Bruno
>
> >
> > 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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to