Hi all,

I suddenly feel sorry putting too much burden on just one  
correspondent in the list, and I would appreciate if someone else  
could propose answers or any remarks to the exercises.

I am also a bit anxious about Kim, who is the one who suggested me the  
initial explanations, but who seems to have disappear right now.

There is also some sort of burden onto me, because it is hard to  
explain "the real thing" concerning the seventh step, without  
explaining or just illustrating at least some relevant portion of the  
mathematical reality: mainly the unexpected mathematical discovery of  
the universal functions, sets, numbers, systems, language, machine ...  
I don't mention the absence of drawing ability which does not help.

Given that the list raised from a critical approach toward Tegmark and  
Schmidhuber, I was usually assuming some knowledge in math and  
physics. What was harder for me in the beginning was to motivate the  
use of "philosophy of mind" notions, notably the key distinction  
between the first and third person point of view. Then UDA should make  
you realize how non obvious the relation between the first person and  
the third person can be once we assume comp (= work in the theory  
comp). My original goal was to illustrate that once we assume digital  
mechanism, we can build a "scientific formulation" of the mind-body  
problem or the consciousness-reality problem. We probably depart from  
Tegmark and Schmidhuber, or Wolfram, by taking into account that  
making comp explicit entails a delocalisation of the 1-person  
relatively to the third person computations, and makes the identity  
thesis, a most complex equivalence relations.

The knowledge of most people participating to the discussion is very  
varied, due to the extreme transdiciplinarity of the subject, and the  
interest it can evidently have for the layman (and indeed, for any  
universal machine).
Marty asked me to make an attempt toward a "journalistic" description  
of "how physics has to become  part of number theory".  This is very  
difficult, and risky due to inevitable misunderstanding.
And I feel like I have to explain in what deep sense the mathematical  
discovery of the "universal machine", made by Post, Turing, ... is  
already a quite utterly astonishing, yet subtle, discovery. Gödel  
himself took time to swallow it and he described Church thesis as an  
epistemological miracle.
My intention was to derive properly Cantor theorem, and then Kleene  
theorem, which was the object of my old "diagonalization posts".
I feel important that people understand how unbelievable Church thesis  
is, and why most startling propositions, including incompleteness, are  
easy consequences of it.

Typically I am happy to share my enthusiasm about all theorems in  
computer science which leads to the reversal, but knowing myself I  
know that I could accelerate too much and makes too much burden for  
the correspondent especially if he is alone.
So before becoming an harasser myself I invite Marty to let other  
people trying to answer the exercises.
Marty has fully agreed to this proposal and is happy the pressure is  
off him to represent all those who are following anonymously.
Eventually I can show the solution and proceed in addressing the post  
to everyone.
Note that this is what I have done with the combinators, feedback were  
made out-of-line, then. But this lead to difficulties too. I cannot  
solve all the exercise out-of-line.  By experience this ends up with  
finding myself writing too many posts with almost the same info to  
different people.
Yet I can imagine how much it is to be the only public target of what  
could look like an perpetual exam, and I really want to proceed in a  
cooler way.

Some people have encouraged me, out-of-line, to proceed, but now I  
think they should participate a little bit, if only to witness they  
are following the thread. I will probably stop to propose "easy" (a  
quite relative notion) exercise, but then it is important to stop me  
once anything is unclear. This is a problem with math, if you miss a  
piece, everything becomes senseless.

Understanding implies some self-implication in the reasoning. So,  
either someone else try to participate, or I continue impersonally and  
eventually I will try some "non technical summary". I recall that one  
of the goal consists in explaining the difference between a  
computation and a description of a computation (beyond just doing the  
step 7).

Any remark to improve the communication or to design a better  
methodology is welcome,

Best regards to all of you, and thanks for letting me know your  



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

Reply via email to