Le 12-sept.-07, à 13:08, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> > On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> OK. So where are the flying pigs? >>> >>> Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is. >> >> Ok. Why are they there and not here? >> >> I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that saying everything-exists is >> not only "no-justification" it is also "no-information". By itself >> it is worthless for explaining anything. > > Yes, you have to show how the theory makes predictions about the real > world, otherwise it is impossible to know whether it is true or not > and the theory is worthless. I'm more or less ok with this, except that you can *never* know when a theory (about reality) is true (about reality). I have already criticize everything-like theories when they take a too big "everything" hyp. at the start, like pure mathematicalism à-la Tegmark. From that point of view Schmidhuber is a bit clearer on the type of everything notion available once you postulate the comp hyp. (Now Schmidhuber does not take the 1-3 pov distinction into account, so he missed apparently the role of the first person indeterminacy and its verifiable consequences, like the fact that the laws of physics have to emerge from the platonic existence of the many computations). It is really Church's thesis which provides the first coherent notion of "everything". That is why I'm motivated to tentattively explain what Church thesis is, and why it is a sort of completely unexpected miracle (to talk like Godel). 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
