My background is in Physics and Astrophysics, with interests in GR
I suppose I need some definitions of terms as well as whether those
definitions are used by all of the posters.
I have no idea what consciousness is or why the Universe/Multiverse
Finally for now, I vaguely see how Tegmark's mathematical structures
can represent the mathematical represenations of Physics, but not at
the physical level.
On Nov 28, 2:41 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> > 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 :)
> 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