On 13 Jul 2009, at 00:46, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
> > I'd like to let you know that I'm following the serie of your letters. > While I have the background you are covering right now, I still enjoy > your insights. Thanks for letting me know. > > > I joined the list like two years ago and from that time I've read most > of your key papers. Honestly, it is not the easiest stuff to read > style-wise. You try to precise, define well, etc. yet it cannot really > be compared to the quality of, let us say, Physical Review Letters and > alike articles. I work on a subject which is not usually approach in any reviews of physics. And then my english is sometimes a bit hazardous. But I have never get referee or any feedback about the rigors, which in my field (machine theology) is far more developed than usual. It is part of the problem for some people I think. It is just unusual. > In my opinion, that is why it is hard to either agree or > disagree with your thesis. I disagree. It is simple. Just say a number between 1 and 8, with a justification of what you don't understand. Perhaps between 0 and 8, if you have a problem with the definition of comp. > > > I can imagine that right now you are tempted to write something along > the lines > a\ I just propose to take Church thesis seriously > b\ All I ask you is 'Do you say yes to the doctor? yes, for the sake of the argument. A non computationalist can just consider someone else saying yes to the doctor. A bit more is needed, and it is necessary to recall the definition of comp: it exists a level of description of my (generalized) such that I survive through a digital functional substitution made at that level. > > While valid proposal and question, there is really not much to agree > with/disagree with/critize unless one is willing to undertake long > discussions, clarifications and position adjustments. Indeed, there is nothing to disagree. Only to understand, and who knows? to clarify. But then it is up to those who try to understand to say what they don't understand, besides the intrinsic difficulty with the subject. In the seventies some people argued that any sentence containing the word "consciousness" was automatically crackpot. Of course this is an illustration of the complete absence of understanding of the axiomatic method. We never know what we are talking about, we can only agree on starting propositions and method of reasoning, and then see if the conclusion follows from what we have admitted. > > > > Anyway, your papers and letters are really a great source of ideas to > think about and that is exactly what I do. I am happy with that. > From the day one on the list > I keep myself busy with the question of "Why should I believe in the > Church thesis" (you see, I don't write "Why do I ..."). Good question. A lot of my work consists in showing that CT is a very strong principle. It is far stronger than most computer scientist imagine. > I've got into > the writing of Bernard Bolzano (I consider his work cruicial in > order to > keep an open mind about the Cantor diagonal argument) .. > - and now back to the beginning of my letter - > Bolzano (Cantor), your insights and thinking about alternatives at any > moment make me pretty happy. Thanks! You are welcome. > PS: I'd love to read a book by Bruno Marchal. I have already written three books, and one was ordered by a publisher after getting a price. The two other one were disputed by different publishers, and then suddenly, without explanation, all those projects were abandoned. I have lost my trust in that kind of world I'm afraid. I don't think the reason of that abandon has any relationship with my work which is really of the type: "find the error". I will surely write one paper and one book. Recently I have submitted a paper, and the referees were quite enthusiast, but the paper has been refused for being out of the topic, which it was not (unless you don't believe that observers are person). We will see. My work is simple in two senses: UDA is simple because you need nothing more than a very tiny amount of understanding on numbers, set, computable functions and consciousness/kowledge. AUDA is relatively "simple" because you need only to understand Solovay's theorem and the Theaetetical definitions of knowledge. It makes comp hard to believe, no doubt, but here the work of Everett in quantum mechanics can provide a big help. Ah, ok, all this at once needs works and time, but nothing more. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
