Le 28-nov.-07, à 17:32, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :

> Hi Bruno,
> I'm ready. Luckily, it is not long time ago, I've received my 
> university
> degree in CS, so it was rather easy to follow :-)
> Sincerely,
>  Mirek

Thanks for telling me that you are ready. Now I feel a bit guilty 
because today and tomorrow I get unexpected work, and next week I am 
teaching again.
I hope that those who have no university degree in CS have been able to 
follow the thread too.

I will try to resume the last exercise tomorrow, (one last post on 
Cantor's diagonal), and then, I will write, during next week, the key 
post, which will prove an absolutely fundamental theorem on the 
Universal Machines, a theorem without which UDA would be stuck in the 
sixth step, and without which the lobian interview would not make 
sense. The theorem says that ALL universal machines are insecure or 
imperfect. I guess some of you can already guess or produce the proof 
(in company of a general definition of "secure machine", 'course).


You should be clearer about when you work *in* your ultrafinistic 
theory and when you work in its metatheory. If not, Quentin is right to 
ask you not to mention any sort of "infinite" of any kind. Most of the 
time, it is very hard to make sense of your approach, due to the lack 
of a clear distinction between the ultrafinistic theory and the 
informal metatheory you do refer to, very often.
Note that without the movie graph (the 8th step of the UDA), comp 
remains coherent *only* through an explicitly physicalist version of 
ultrafinitism and an explicitly dualist theory of Mind (perhaps you 
should collaborate with Marc?). Mind would need matter (but then why, 
and what is it?), and the UDA would not go through because we would 
live in a unique and then very little universe. I guess everythingers 
would be skeptical at the start, here. Also the quantum facts are going 
in an opposite direction, imo.
Actually, the movie-graph prevents such a move, I think. We can go back 
on this, later. To be sure I am open to critics there, I am not 
entirely satisfied with my presentation of the argument, and both 
George and Russell did succeed in making me thinking a lot more on that 
issue,  or of the way to present it perhaps (more than I was 



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 

Reply via email to