Hi Kim,
On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 28/11/2008, at 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I have just finished the explanation of an argument >> (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that >> I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there >> is >> some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have >> emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof, >> the >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume >> mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or >> better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively: >> machine's >> computer science > > > Dear Bruno > > for years now I have been trying to grasp this idea. I am an intuitive > - a composer, an aesthete. The only thing that makes sense to my > intuition is the beautiful. That makes sense. > I believe that there is religious > knowledge, scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge AND artistgic > (ie aesthetical knowledge.) You MUST try to make this idea accesible > to somebody like me. I believe you can do it. I have enormous faith in > your powers of expositiion. I believe I am very close to understanding > it - grokking it - feeling it dans mes couilles si tu me pige mon pote Gosh, well, thanks. > > > I think this idea is so momentous that I actually wish to compose a > piece of music - possibly a symphony - which seeks to represent this > idea in music. My computer (my "universal machine") did interpret some of your music recently. > > > Et pourquoi pas? Most of the great composers attempted to represent > the TRANSCENDENTAL in music. I believe you, more than any human whose > mind I have frotté (grazed? Rubbed against?) has a representation of > ultimate things. The mind of the MUSICAL CREATIVE LOGICIAN desires to > know this. Pense Bach - Beethoven, even Boulez (who will never be > popular.) But they had to have a leading idea - une idee fixe, sit tu > veux - qui les amenait a une representation interieure des choses dite > fondementale, voire primitives .... > > > How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi - > that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no > substratum of primitive physical materiality? Hmmm.... yeah, perhaps one day you could think about *you* proving me there is such a substratum ... Keep in mind also, that, perhaps, you are NOT a machine ... Now, ok, if you want I can try to explain this, to a "layman". UDA has been created for the layman, not for reason of compassion but because it is good preparation for making it comprehensible by *any* universal machine. But then they found this before us, and I am, with you the humble learner, really. It is true that now that MGA has been done, a good recap on UDA could be used .... > > > If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te > serais infiniment reconnaisant Je vais essayer. I will make a try. Be patient. First lesson probably Sunday :) 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
