Hi All, I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been collected? I would like to get my hands on such.
--Brian On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Marchal Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Günther, > > > > > >> I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the > >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably) showing that: > >> > >> - CRH implies COMP > >> - COMP implies the negation of CRH > >> - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH does > >> not hold. > > > > > > > >Regarding: > > > >COMP implies the negation of CRH > > > >Is this also in your Sane 2004 paper? (then I missed that point) - if > >not, where did you argue this? > > It is not in the Sane 2004 paper. I have argue that COMP imples NOT-CRH > online, in reply to Schmidhuber or someone defending the idea that the > universe could be the product of a computer program. > > Universality, Sigma_1 completeness, m-completness, creativity (in Post > sense), all those equivalent notion makes sense only through complementary > notion which are strictly sepaking more complex (non RE, productive, ...). > The self-introspecting universal machine can hardly miss the inference of > such "realities", and once she distinguishes the 1, 1-plural, 3-person points > of view, she has to bet on the role of the non computable realities (even too > much getting not just randomness, like QM, but an hard to compute set of > anomalous stories (white rabbits, coherent but inconsistent dreams). > > It's a bit like "understanding" (putting in a RE set) the (code of) the > total computable functions, forces us to accept the existence of only > partially computable functions, which sometimes (most of the time, see the > thesis by Terwijn) have a non recursive domain. > OK, the ontic part of a comp TOE can be no *more* than Sigma_1 complete, but > a non self-computable part of Arithmetical truth and analytical truth, is > needed to get the *internal* measure, we can't even give a name to our first > person plenitude and things like that. > > The quantified "angel guardian" of a simple Lobian machine like PA, that is > qG*, is itself Pi_1 in the Arithmetical Truth (see Boolos 1993 book). The > "God" of PA (already unameable by PA) is already NOT omniscient about PA's > intelligible reality, if you follow the arithmetical interpretation of > Plotinus I did propose. > Perhaps this is why the Intelligible has been discovered (Plato) before the > "ONE" (Plotin). It is far bigger. With comp you can restrict the ontic to the > Universal Machine (the baby ONE), but its intelligible realm is well beyond > its grasp. > All this is related to the fact, already understood by Judson Webb, that > comp is truly a vaccine against reductionist theories of the mind. > > Have a good day, > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
