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.
> 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