You mean, besides the archive of this list?  ;)

On May 1, 2:16 pm, "Brian Tenneson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to