Exercise: criticize the following papers mentioned below in the light  
of the discovery of the universal machine and its main consequences  
from incompleteness to first person indeterminacy. Think of the  
identity thesis. To be sure Tegmark is less "wrong" than Jannes.

Solution: search in the archive of this list where I have already  
explained this, or use directly UDA, or wait for what will (perhaps)  

I should send some of my papers on arXiv, but up to now, only  
logicians understand the whole "trick", so I have to better  
appreciated what physicians don't understand in logic, before making a  
version free of references to mathematical logical baggage. Logicians  
are not interested in mind, nor really matter, and physicians are  
still naïve on the link consciousness/reality, I would say.

To be sure Tegmark is closer than most physicists except perhaps  

Also, Tegmarks' argument for mathematicalism is invalid (even with  
strong non-comp axioms). But I prefer to help you to understand this  
by yourself through the understanding of what a universal machine is,  
than trying a direct argument.

According of the part of UDA (or perhaps AUDA) you understand, you can  
already see the weakness of such direct mathematical approach. Note  
that comp makes physics much more fundamental, and separate it much  
clearly from possible geograpies. Above all comp does not eliminate  
the person, which Tegmark is still doing: the frog view is not yet a  
first person view, in the comp sense.

Interesting stuff, still. Thanks for the references.


On 20 Jul 2009, at 19:44, Brian Tenneson wrote:

> I found a paper that might be of interest to those interested in  
> Tegmark's work.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0867
> Abstract
> I discuss some problems related to extreme mathematical realism,  
> focusing on a recently proposed "shut-up-and-calculate" approach to  
> physics (arXiv:0704.0646, arXiv:0709.4024). I offer arguments for a  
> moderate alternative, the essence of which lies in the acceptance  
> that mathematics is (at least in part) a human construction, and  
> discuss concrete consequences of this--at first sight purely  
> philosophical--difference in point of view.
> -Brian
> >


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