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 <> 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  
> comment!
> 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  
> arithmetic.
> 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.
> Bruno
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to