Dear Bruno,

Thank you for your ample and generous answer.

I want to play with my cards on the table and I take as a rule not to
pretend to understand what I do not understand. I must confess you
that your answer was for me as promising as it was obscure.

I'll try to break down my doubts.

> Ah! The divine intellect is a typical (neo)platonist notion. It is  
> Plato's Noûs, and its rôle is played by the modal logic G* all along  
> this list. It is the canonical divine intellect that you can associate  
> to any self-referentially correct machine.
> The (pegagogical) problem is that it assumes some background in  
> mathematical logic.

I have no idea what is the modal logic G*. I understand that I need to
go through the archives of the list to get the details, but I didn't
have the time yet to do so. I am also at lost with your concept of a
"self-referentially correct machine". As I understand it, If the
machine is self-referential, either it is a tautology to say that it
is correct or the categories of correct and false are irrelevant.

> Most mystics, including the introspective universal  
> machine, agree that God has simply no name at all.
> The "little god" (the universal machine) has no definite name: each  
> time you give it a name or description it can change it (refute it)  
> and get other names (an infinity of names are then available). The  
> explosion of universal machines and programming languages can be  
> related to this phenomenon.

Do you mean that the so-called "introspective universal machine" is a
mystic? I am still struggling to understand what you mean by the self-
referentially correct machine. Now there is an introspective universal
machine and a universal machine that it is also a "little god". In
Judaism, the "little god" is associated to the angel Metatron, as for
instance in Yom Kippur. On a second thought, "Metatron" sounds pretty
much like the name you would give to a machine! This is Metatron 2.0.

> A problem I have with Kabbalah, the Sufi and some other mystical is  
> that many forget the initial insight from numbers and develop many  
> "numerical superstition". This did already begin with Pythagoras.

What do you mean by "the initial insight from numbers"? This looks
particularly promising.

> (*) see the Universal Dovetailer Argument (in the list, or in my url  
> below, search the archive for UDA).

I visited your site, but unfortunately the only way to access the
article about UDA was to buy the whole magazine. I didn't find it
either in "The Theory of Nothing". Any CC version of your article
available? I would love to read it.

> Hmm... remember that Pauli and Jung build their concept from the OLD  
> Quantum Mechanics.

My reference to Pauli and Jung was, actually, the story according to
which Pauli became obsessed with the number 317. It seems that in the
course of his research in physics, Pauli encountered this number over
and over again in all kind of different measurements and ratios,
apparently unrelated and with no connection to each other. As the
legend goes, Pauli became at some point a patient of Jung and
explained him about his obsession. Jung told him that, following
Jewish Gematria(*), 317 was the numerical value of the word Kabbalah.
A very amusing "coincidence". My favourite part of the story is that
through his research in physics and subsequent obsession with the
number 317, Pauli had up reconnecting with his Jewish roots! It is a
joke worth a God with sense of humour.


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