on diverse lists (I cannot call them 'science-branches' since lately most
domains are discussed in considering aspects of several of such on the
diverse discussion-lists) -
CONCEPTS (I wish I knew a better word) appear by different content.
If somebody has the time and feels like (knows how to) do it, a brief
reconsiderational ID listing would help us outsiders to reconfirm what "WE"
*Comp* - (computing, computer-universal or not,)
The application of (=your relevance of) the *Church* thesis
*Universa*l machine - BTW: machine, or God, as in (our) theology
*White rabbit*, (and I don't even dare write:) *numbers,* -
and in not much than 1-2 lines(!!!) ea:
*UD, UDA, AUDA*, with:
hints to "YES" *to the doctor*, and *maybe some more* -
which the 'old listers' apply here with ease (yet *maybe(!)* in their
modified i.e. personalised taste?) - newcomers. however, usually first
misinterpret into 'other' *vernaculars*.
(It is my several decade long research experience to sit down once in a
while and recap
(recoop?) the terms used in the daily efforts. They change by the *(ab?)*use
and re-realizing their original content may push the research effort ahead
from a stagnant hole it falls into inevitably during most "routine"
In doing so, almost all the time there occurred an "AHA".
One cannot do it privately and alone. We cannot slip out from our skin. I
did it with someone knowledgeable in the broader field (maybe even a fresh
graduate?) or on a public lecture, where questions and opposite opinions
could be expected.
Best for the hooiday season: this may be a present for Chirstmas.
On St. Nicholas Day
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 05 Dec 2009, at 21:00, Rex Allen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker
> > <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >> Rex Allen wrote:
> >>> What is your alternative to the "everything" universal acid? That
> >>> things just are the way they are (uniquely), and there's
> >>> ultimately no
> >>> explanation for that. Right?
> >> Exactly so. "It's just happened that way" and "Everything happens
> >> and
> >> so this happens too." are both equally useless. Progress is only
> >> made
> >> when we can explain why this rather than that.
> > So, we have our observations, and we want to explain them, so we need
> > some context to place them in. So we postulate the existence of an
> > external universe. But then we want to explain what we see in this
> > external universe, and the only option is to postulate the existence
> > of a multiverse.
> > Nothing can be explained in terms of only itself. To explain it, you
> > have to place it in the context of something larger. Otherwise, no
> > explanation is possible, you just have to say, "this is the way it is
> > because that's the way it is."
> > Right?
> > Basically there's only two way the process can end. Two possible
> > answers to the question of "Why is the universe this way instead of
> > some other way?":
> > 1) Because things just are the way they are, and there's no further
> > explanation possible.
> > 2) Because EVERYTHING happens, and so this was inevitable in that
> > larger context of "everything".
> > What other option is there, do you think?
> Well in this list we follow the option "2". (As its name indicates).
> To progress we need to make the everything idea more precise. Most
> naive "everything idea" are either trivial and non informative, or can
> be shown inconsistent.
> QM is an amazing everything theory, astoundingly accurate. Yet it is
> based on comp (or variety of comp), which means that if you take
> serioulsy the first person experiences into consideration, then you
> have to derive the Schroedinger waves from a deeper purely
> arithmetical derivation.
> But with the computable, something happens: the discovery of the
> universal machine (accepting Church's thesis).
> This makes enough to confront all universal machine, actually the
> Löbian one will even understand why", with a "consciousness/reality"
> problem, or first-person/third person relation problem, and that the
> Löbian machine can develop the means to explore the many gaps which
> exists there.
> >>> So we can take our observations of the world around us and
> >>> construct a
> >>> narrative that is consistent with what we see...a narrative that
> >>> involves big bangs and electrons. But what caused the big bang?
> >>> Why
> >>> do electrons have the particular properties that they have? If you
> >>> propose a particular cause for these things, what caused that cause?
> >>> How is that better than a narrative that allows for "everything"?
> >>> They would seem to have equal explanatory power. Which is to say:
> >>> zero.
> >> We have much evidence about the big bang and some theories as to
> >> how it
> >> may have happened which are testable.
> > So the existence of a big bang event certainly seems consistent with
> > our observations. But so does the idea of a Boltzmann style
> > statistical fluctuation from thermal equilibrium. Or the idea that
> > this is just the dream of the infinitude of relations between numbers.
> > We construct narratives that are consistent with our observations, but
> > these narratives are about our observations, not about what really
> > exists. You seem to have jumped to some unfounded ontological
> > conclusions.
> > You can talk about big bangs if that helps you think about your
> > observations, helps you identify patterns in what you experience.
> > But, that's as far as it can reasonably go, right?
> > At the end of the day, we're always right back at where we
> > started...with our observations...with our subjective conscious
> > experience.
> I think we have made progress. We "know" (assuming digital mechanism)
> that we know nothing about the consequence of addition and
> multiplication, but that we can explore, and that it is divided into
> sharable and non sharable parts.
> We may correct a widespread error: the sharable part is the objective
> and doubtable part, the non sharable part is the subjective and
> undoubtable part.
> We have a theology. A "greek" one, by which I mean, that is the bad
> news for some, we have to do mathematics.
> And nobody ask you to believe it, unless you decide to say "yes" to
> some doctor and believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
> You can call it a toy theology, given that it is the theology of an
> ideally relatively self-referentially correct Löbian machine. It
> exists as a branch of math, and it applies to us if comp is true and
> as far as we are correct ourselves, which we can never known. But we
> can bet on levels, like "nature" apparently already did, and prey or
> hope or something like that.
> The quest of truth will continue. If comp is true reality is beyond
> fictions. For the best or the worth, this depends *partially* on us.
> Who "us"? "Us" the universal machines.
> The motto: be vigilant toward any *form* of authoritative argument,
> even those of nature. Eventually it is a matter of personal freedom,
> but it is far better to get the personal understanding in those
> matter. All universal machine "soon or later" understands this.
> Bruno 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-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at