Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thanks for the link Colin. I will read it after the exams period. In some trivial sense I think I, and the Lobian machine, agrees with your conclusion, but less trivially, we may disagree. We don't have to change the boundaries of science, just be more open to facts, including the consequences of different theories. Could say more later. I think that computer science offers a theory of qualia on a plate (the intensional variants of the solovay logic G*, the 'right hypostases"). It is a sort of theory which explains what escapes all theories. It makes you "first person" right, with the assumption of mechanism. But it is not knew, many did intuit such type of 'truth', and the greek intuited it together with the fact that we can reason about that. Th (old) error consists in opposing science and mysticism. The universal machine is naturally already mystical.
I have explained this, but I know it is not so easy to grasp.


I hope I can crack through your mindset one day! You can dream all you like about abstract interactions of numbers on a non-existent computer. It makes no difference to me. You can't build it, it predicts nothing and explains nothing. What I am trying to get people to realise is the most elementary of simple realities that we face as humans:

(1) That whatever it is, we are inside it, made of it. The universe X. We acquire our faculties of observation from that circumstance.

(2) That the position you intrinsically inherit from (1) as an observer intent on understanding how X works has two possible modes of description:

(A) Statements capturing the essence of how X appears to us as observers in X. No matter how mathematically elaborate these statements are, cannot deny the other mode ... (B) Statements depicting the interactions between structural-primitive elements comprising X that (i) result in an observer that (ii) sees the universe as we do (as per (A).

Mutual self consistency must be confirmed at all levels except where (A) fails....predictably. Neither (A) or (B) can be claimed to literally 'be' the universe. This does not mean that (B) cannot literally be the universe. It means we cannot /claim it to be/. Formally, we must remain forever agnostic. In practice we get the benefit of really getting to the heart of X in useful ways.

Our big mistake is to conflate, endlessly and without review, (A) and (B). The conflation is twofold. We either do (B) without realising that its primary demand is the prediction of an observer
we arbitrarily decree (B) as impossib;le...sometimes by simply only doing A and thinking it somehow explains an observer.

Observations cannot explain an observer! (an ability to observe). To believe they do is like saying that telephone conversations explain the telephone system.

But we've  been here before......

All I am saying is that (A) science is no less valid than (B) science, is not the same science and that it has equal rights to all empirical evidence (the contents of the consciousnes of scientists that literally constitutes scientific observation).

No amount of fiddling about with abstract maths changes any of this. I hope that the essay speaks to you in a way that helps you see this.

This is the position I am gradually building.

I am going to go so far as to formally demand a summit on the matter. I believe things are that screwed up. 300 years of this confinement in the (A) prison is long enough.

colin hales

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