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.


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 

Reply via email to