On 05 Jan 2010, at 21:18, Nick Prince wrote:

It feels a bit lie a chicken and egg situation - do we pick out the
laws or do they pick us?. But I am still working my way through this
and  and loads of other stuff, so I don't understand it yet.

The computable laws (definable in elementary arithmetic) pick "us", and "we" pick the physical law.

"Number => consciousness => matter."

But this makes sense only if you mean by "us", "us, the universal machines".
It is pretty ridiculous, if you meant it by "us" the "humans".

It is tricky to understand. Comp *is* counterintuitive. It is related to a gap between the fist and third person point of view, which came from the gap between 'true' and 'provable', (and 'true and provable', etc.).

The possibility of this "reversal" comes from "programming", or "Gödel numbering". It comes from the fact that a part of the mathematical reasoning can be translated into arithmetic, and so does the computations. Auda comes from the fact, already well seen by Gödel in 1931, that machines, or axiomatizable set of beliefs (theorie), can prove their own Gödel's incompleteness result (the so called "formalized" second incompleteness theorem). (~Bf -> ~B ~Bf).

Good book: Boolos 1979. (assume Mendelson's book or alike). No need for uda, although it helps to "de-trivialize" uda, it makes the mind body problem a problem in pure math/computer science.



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 

Reply via email to