Le 11-janv.-08, à 17:32, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
>> Very interesting thesis Mirek. I have download it, and will certainly
>> try to dig a bit more on it some week-ends.
> Thanks, hopefully you will find something interesting in there.
>> I see you don't cite Everett, which indeed is not necessary for the
>> practice of quantum computing. But your presence in this list could
>> mean that you are open to many-worlds ideas, or everything-like
>> theories. I would like to know, if you don't mind, your opinion on
>> Everett, Deutsch ..., and perhaps about interpretation of QM in
> Well yes, my opinion about QM is not well established yet.
Me too. My certainly revisable opinion is that QM confirms the many
comp histories we have to suspect below our level of substitution.
> I have jumped
> to the field of quantum computing three years ago. I had no previous
> knowledge on the topic nor I did know any quantum physics. I had been
> playing with the C compiler mostly in the past. Due to relatively short
> time in the quantum world, I have so far used QM only as a tool - 'shut
> up and calculate' interpretation.
I am always a bit astonished that people can do that, but of course
most of the time we have not really the choice.
Personally I have still some problem to use my brain without
> It happened relatively recently, that I was searching the web for
> buddhist philosophy reading and found James Higgo's "Four reasons why
> you don’t exist". Approximately at the same time I saw a lot of Everett
> related articles thanks to the 50th anniversary. So I bought Deutsch's
> Fabric of Reality. It led me to the Fabric-of-Reality mailing list and
> that took me to the Everything-list. Here I saw your "UDA -> (QM) ->
> MWI" and all these things together attracted me a lot.
> I think, I can say that I am pretty much open minded. It often seems to
> me that I keep a 'superposition' of all what I see and read. I don't
> abandom some forks, I just change the amplitudes.
Like me you are a bit like a dovetailer ... It's all right but not
necessarily easy with "publish or perish" sort of principles.
> I hardly ever insist
> on something, I am rarely sure,
I think this is a mark of the serious scientist mind, and, well I can
justify that it has to be the main feature of the sound lobian
scientist, but I guess we will have perhaps some opportunity to
elaborate on that later.
> I don't try to push 'good' and 'bad' far
> apart from each other.
As far as you can distinguish a cup of coffee from a venomous spider
... But I agree that some Good/Bad, even True/False separation is a bit
like the Chinese Ying-Yang where there is always pieces of Ying in the
Yang, and Yang in the Ying.
> I like when I climb on a steep vertical wall
I think that the interview of a lobian machine can be considered as a
shortcut in the fundamental sciences, but then it could be a bit too
much steep, especially for those who lack a bit of computer science.
> and life is hard and simple at the same time.
> Regarding MWI ... I have not read the original Everett paper yet. I
> expected to get most of his ideas from the Fabric of Reality, but alas
> in this book I got stuck at the strange frog seeing individual photons.
I am not sure why you are stuck there. If you are really stuck there
don't hesitate to discuss this on the FOR list.
> It seemed to me too much scientific-popular reading and I did not get
> back to the book so far.
> For christmass, I asked my girlfrind to give me The Wisdom of
> Insecurity, Computability: An Introduction to Recursive Function
> and Godel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse, so these
> books might precede the Fabric :-)
I see you believe more in your girlfriend than in Santa Klaus!
Did she find Alan Watts' "the wisdom of insecurity"?
About books I never know really what books I should suggest. Logicians
like to write many beautiful books.
If you like and appreciate the subject matter of Cutland's
"Computability: An Introduction to Recursive Function Theory", then you
could think about asking your girlfriend to find the "bible" by Hartley
ROGERS. (ref in my thesis).
>> About the S K programming language, I guess some people have recognize
>> the Shoenfinkel-Curry combinators. More on this in my old combinators
> Uuu, new excercises and I am still reading the DIAGONAL post from
I guess this one:
Please, take all your time, and don't hesitate to ask precisions or to
make any comments.
I prefer now to be sure people have a deep grasp of what is a
"Universal Machine" and Church Thesis before jumping to the "theology"
of the lobian entity.
> It means I am still living in the previous year, it is good,
> who wants to be old :-)
Take all the time you want, but not slower!
I have planned the Main Comp-Everything Exam for the year 789,144 :)
Happy new years!
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