On 24 Nov 2008, at 16:11, Günther Greindl wrote:

> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> If infinities are at play... what is a MAT-history ? it can't even be
>> "written".
> Agreed. And that is why we should be more reluctant to drop COMP  
> than to
> drop MAT.
> But IF we drop COMP, we could "accept" unwriteable MAT-histories.

Yes. You could define precise mathematical unwriteable MAT-histories.  
Mathematical logicians have already the tools for managing "Newtonian"  
MAT-histories..You will need logic with non enumerable alphabet. Good  
luck with the non enumerable typo errors :)
But no problem. I find this unplausible but it can be done consistently.

  COMP is a bit like consistency from Peano Arithmetic first person  
view on its third person description (its clothes or its Gödel Number,  
or its "program"): IF true, then its falsity is consistent.
COMP is the ontic truth on "YES DOCTOR", and it entails (provably with  
some vocabulary definition) the intrinsical RIGHT, for machines,  to  
say "NO" to the doctor, and the ethical obligation to respect those  
who says NO.

I have no problem with MAT believers, only with COMP+MAT believers.
Note also that, even with just COMP the first person "OM "lives"  
unwriteable stories, so those tools will be used, even in the cadre of  
And I can uderstand, through comp,  the roots of the believe that comp  
is false. Actually there is a sense to say that from the first person  
point of view, comp *is* flase. The first person that you can (in a  
proper mathematical way) associated to a machine, already does not or  
cannot believe in the truth of comp. This I can elaborate later, but  
this needs more technics.



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