On 25 Dec 2008, at 14:46, John Mikes wrote:

> Bruno et al.:
> I don't feel comfortable with the view "reality OF something".  
> Reality IMO is the
> unfathomable existence (whatever that may be) and WE - machines,  
> mind, you
> name it are having access to portions that we interpret (realize?)  
> in ways we can.
> This portion (part, view, ensemble, whatever) is our perceived  
> reality which may
> be 'physical', 'numbers', 'faith', what WE deem (our) REALITY.

Scientists know that a theory is always intrinsically hypothetical,  
and probably wrong. Making it precise makes it possible to be *shown*  
wrong, and so we can abandon it, partially or completely, but so we  

> Within such we may accept certain items as "real", what does not  
> make them
>  THE REALITY only accepted aspects in our perception.

THE REALITY is what we search. Nobody here pretend to know it in any  
public way. THE REALITY is what we postulate theories about.
Then I propose an argument that IF we say yes to the doctor, that is,   
IF there is a level of self-description such that  a digital  
substitution preserves my identity feeling and my consciousness THEN  
numbers (or combinators, ...) have to be enough at the ontological  
level. The rest can be described as internal gluing epistomologies,  
the lawful "many dreams".  This is going in *your* direction, it seems  
to me.

MEC is not reductionist because it attribute consciousness to relative  
sequences of numbers.  It attributes personhood to sufficiently  
introspective self-transforming machine. It points to the fact that we  
can already listen to their opinions in some (precise) sense.

> The TOE may be pertinent to the 'reality', from the view of that  
> particular 'theory'
> - in the case of this list: physical-mathematical aspects.

? Are we not conversing on consciousness, persons and the mind body  
problem? Is there no an attempt emphasize computer science and logic?

John, when you say that we must take into account the fact that our  
theories are biased by the fact that they are our own theories, you  
are right. But then, this is a theorem in the theory MEC, where we can  
mathematically begin to study the degree of bias of possible self- 
observing machines.

I, and the universal machine,  agrees often with what you are saying,  
John, but I rarely understand the critical tone, like if the existence  
of a bias should discourage the search for theories. (It should  
discourage only the velleity of certainties there.  If that is your  
point, I agree).

And then, there is a frequent confusion between "realm" and theories.  
MEC is not really a theory, it is more a bridge between realms. To say  
yes to the doctor, and to realize afterward that the fundamental TOE  
is "number theory" is just a change of realms (physics/arithmetic,  
psychology/arithmetic). This is because, after Gödel, we know that we  
cannot capture all the truth about the numbers in a definitive theory.
Once we take into account the MEC hypothesis, or just the intensional  
(coding) property of numbers the mess among the numbers become almost  
transparent, and it is the merit of Gödel to show it to be necessary.  
Once we define addition and multiplication numbers begin to reflect  
each other, and they can defeat all theories wanting to be definitive  
about them,. This is a fact reflected by the universal machine alone.

The universal machine(s) defeat(s) all complete (total) theories about  
it or them. Already. (that's an attractive feature for me).

After the discovery of the Universal Machine, the Mechanist  
hypothesis, or even just the "strong AI" thesis,  is not a  
reductionism, it is an openness of our mind toward a peculiar Unknown  
which invites itself to our table.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Reality
> M.A.,
> On 20 Dec 2008, at 15:21, M.A. wrote:
>> Bruno,
>>              Does the term "reality" have any meaning in MEC?
>>                                m 
>> .a.
> What makes you think the term "reality" has no meaning in MEC?
> Even physical reality keeps its main practical meaning, except it  
> becomes emerging from a deeper reality (the reality of the relation  
> among numbers).
> Why would you say "yes" to a doctor if you don't believe in a reality?
> Bruno
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to