Bruno, I will "Wiki" the Church thesis - now it is too hot around here.
Besides: your "slip" is showing (if you know this US-expression):
"...the most universal physics capable of being conceived."
Physix is a human figment, as we try to exokain (and conceive?) certain
partially observed phenomena with the little epistemy wi so far got.
And: "conceive" is the way we (humans) try to get close to 'reality'.
Whatever you CAN say is said by YOU (a human) and we really have access only
to marginal (and misunderstood?) paraphernalia.
I was hit on the head in J.Cohen-J.Stewart's "Collapse of Chaos" by the
"Zarathustrans" how those two witty authors attempted to produce
"not-so-human" logic (interpreted still to humans). (If you missed so far
(this and their "Figment of Reality") rush to read it in your leisure time.
Iti s more entertaining than Harry Potter or Star trek.)
This is why I find it a universe-restricted attempt to send out into space
some math formulations as introducing our 'intelligent' status. Quite other
systems (universes?) may not follow it and have different 'logical' bases.
Would be tricky to find such different systems in THIS universe as well.
I would accept every word you say with the proviso: "In our human view"
On 7/27/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your gentle remarks. I will comment your last remark.
> Le 27-juil.-07, à 02:59, John Mikes a écrit :
> > Bruno,
> > thanks for your detailed reply to my 6-09-07 post which I read only
> > 7-26-09 for stupid reasons: I fell into a list with 100+ posts a day -
> > many political and very informative - and it took my time and mental
> > capacity. Also 2 other lists fleured up in topics I was involved
> > strongly so when I cut loose from the war-religion-Iraq and info about
> > the whole world etc. - political haranguing I merged into mind/life
> > economy discussions.
> > I just could not discipline myself to read 'everything'. I read
> > 'everything else'.
> > Besides my response is wasting your time and activity, since I cannot
> > 'think' in terms of true Goedel-Church or Everett etc. terms. A 'wave
> > colapse' is meaningless to me and I discard Schrodinger's cat's
> > multiple posibilities as "ignorantia mascarading as science". I do not
> > speculate on numbers. What do I speculate on? good question.
> > Maybe on the ways how to speculate.
> > Your remarks are vey helpful, I wish I can use them for myself.
> > I represented for a long time the epistemic paradox what you expressed
> > as:
> > "The more a universal machine knows, the more she will be*relatively*
> > ignorant."
> > To know about more and more what we don't know.
> > And I saved your definition:
> > "To be a real scientist means to have the
> > courage to be enough clear so that you can be shown wrong .."
> > Which is the reason why I call my 'worldview' a "narrative", not a
> > theory.
> > Substrate? physical reality? figments at a level (=conventional
> > science) of our mental journey. And I still wonder whether 'number'
> > and 'comp' also belong into the formulations of the (present) human
> > mind accessible logical level. I find 'nature' not subject to such, -
> > this is my (science) agnosticism.
> If Church thesis is true, then there is something quite general, that
> is not specifically human, in the computer science. Physics and nature
> could be more human-oriented, although the lobian physics could as well
> be the most universal physics capable of being conceived. In the next
> posts I will have opportunity to (re)explain better (I hope) the
> tremendous impact of Church thesis for the sciences (including
> theology) in general,
> > John
> > On 6/10/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Le 09-juin-07, à 22:38, John Mikes a écrit :
> >> > Bruno;
> >> >
> >> > how about adding to Tom's reality survey the anti Aeistotelian:
> >> > Reality is what we don't see?
> >> OK. That is how we could sum up Platonism.
> >> > We "get" a partial impact of the 'total' and interpret it 1st person
> >> > as our 'reality', as it was said some time ago here (Brent?)
> >> > "perceived reality" what I really liked . Then came Colin with his
> >> > "reduced" (or what was his term?) solipsism: paraphrasing the
> >> > perceived reality into "OUR" world what we compoase of whatever we
> >> > got.
> >> OK. The difficulty is to keep track of the difference between first
> >> person singular (my pain, my joy, ...) and first person plural like
> >> the
> >> apparent wave collapse in Everett, if not the apparent schroedinger
> >> wave in Comp.
> >> >
> >> > I know that you ask your oimniscient Loebian machine,
> >> Aaah... come on. It is hard to imagine something less omniscient and
> >> more modest than the simple lobian machine I interview, like PA whose
> >> knowledge is quite a tiny subset of yours.
> >> You are still talking like a *pregodelian* mechanist. Machine can no
> >> more be conceived as omniscient, just the complete contrary.
> >> And adding knowledge makes this worse. You can see consciousness
> >> evolution as a trip from G to G*, but that trip makes the gap between
> >> G
> >> and G* bigger. The more a universal machine knows, the more she will
> >> be
> >> *relatively* ignorant.
> >> With comp, knowledge is like a light in the dark, which makes you
> >> aware
> >> of the bigness of the explorable reality, and beyond.
> >> > but we, quotidien mortals,
> >> Even the disembodied PA has to believe-intuit its (relative) possible
> >> mortality or breakdown, and this forever (wrongly or correctly if it
> >> does well the difference between the "hypostases-person-views").
> >> When a universal machine knows that she is universal, then she has to
> >> be aware of its limitations soon or later.
> >> To be immortal, with comp, means to be able to die, forever ...
> >> > rely on our own stupidity about the world.
> >> ALL Universal Machine have to do that. This has been proved. Without
> >> stupidity: no intelligence. To be a real scientist means to have the
> >> courage to be enough clear so that you can be shown wrong ...
> >> > And in this department "perceived reality" is what we have and it is
> >> > close to Colin's personalized mini solipsism.
> >> Physical reality, probably the border of the "lobian mind" is a first
> >> person *plural* sum of all lobian dreams. There is no ultimate
> >> substrate. By being "plural" it should better not been called
> >> solipsism
> >> imo. (I'm assuming comp of course).
> >> 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