Thanks Bruno. I'll look this up and also I want to scan through your
seven steps series for November. The later posts in these I think
will help me make contact with the concepts. I want to be able to
understand your Sane paper - especially the later parts. Is there any
english translation of your thesis still underway as it says in the
"pages" part of the list?
On Jan 4, 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> Oops, soory. I sent an empty answer.
> Actually I agree with all you say here, so an empty comment was a good
> I think all this becomes simpler once you grasp that a computation, in
> the math sense, is a very well defined object.
> If a computation exists, it can be proved to exist in elementary
> And it exists there with a relative measure. This can not necessarily
> prove in arithmetic (but init can be proved for arithmetic in set
> theory). But here Stathis' intuition is correct, we don't have to
> prove in arithmetic the existence of the measure to be able to "live"
> it, and develop a first person perspective.
> An hardwareless computer is well defined mathematical notion.
> Conceptually, it is even difficult and not yet solved problem to
> define an hardware computer (despite its common use could give you the
> contrary feeling).
> Without the rize of quantum computation, I am not sure I would have
> ever believed in a notion of physical computation.
> Cf also, the Mallah implementation problem.
> On 03 Jan 2010, at 14:55, Nick Prince wrote:
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