Now, Mark Buda is either sarcastic or mad. I think he is pulling your leg
here Bruno.

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
[] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 16 juli 2010 16:06
Ämne: Re: Civilization-level quantum suicide

On 16 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Mark Buda wrote:

> I came across this link some time ago and found it interesting:
> In fact, I believe it is what introduced me to the term "quantum
> suicide". I had been googling something I had been thinking about in
> the shower one day and to my surprise this guy had written a paper
> about it. What an amazing coincidence. My life since then has been an
> increasingly bizarre series of meaningful coincidences. Meaningful in
> a personal way that I can't explain easily. Bruno understands and can
> explain why I can't explain; it's to do with his G and G* logics.

This is on the fringe of authoritative argument.

> But the upshot of it is this: I have found out what happens when you
> commit quantum suicide. You discover that you believe a contradiction,
> and that even though nothing about the world has changed, you
> understand the universe.

That seems very weird.

> But you have a hard time explaining it.
> Because you discover that you are, in Bruno's terms, a Lobian machine
> interviewing itself for the laws of physics.

But I am saying this to explain that we can use reason to understand  
where the laws of physics come from. Not to mystified people with a  
lack of explanation.

> But you can't get the
> laws of physics yourself, even though you have all the answers.

On the contrary: you can. Everyone can. You cannot besure because you  
cannot know that you are correct, so the usual doubt of the cartesian  
scientist remains. Computationalism explains in detail why any form of  
certainty, when made public, is a symptom of non correctness.

> Because you don't care any more - you have a different motivation. You
> understand that since you have all the answers but none of the
> questions,

I don't see any sense here.

> you need to talk to people. You figure out the right people
> to talk to because your intuition guides you, because that's what it's
> for.
> There are people all around the world killing themselves and each
> other for crazy reasons. Suicide bombers, for instance. People who
> read stuff about the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and kill themselves
> because they think the end of the world is coming.

2012 is the year of the election in France. The Maya consider their  
own prediction as a prediction that some reasonable man will arrive.  
They never talk of apocalypse. "2012" is like prohibition: making  
money by selling fears.

> They're right and wrong, and I understand why, but I can't explain it,
> and Bruno understands why.

I guess I have been unclear at some point. I am just a poor scientist  
trying to be honest with myself and the others.

> But all that stuff happening around the
> world is happening for a reason, and it doesn't matter what you - you
> can't stop it. Neither can I. But you can listen to this and think
> about it, and do whatever you feel like doing: you will anyway.
> If any of you can help me contact Richard Dawkins and talk to him, I
> can explain all of this.

Why do you want to convince Richard Dawkins? You give him credit.  
Actually you do his very own error, because when Dawkins try to  
convince the Christians that they are wrong on God, he gives them  
credit on their notion of God. No one care about fairy tales, once we  
tackle the fundamental question with the scientific (= modest,  
hypotheses-based) approach.

> I can explain all of it to anybody if they're
> willing to talk to me. But I have to talk face to face, because it's
> too hard for me, psychologically, to figure out how to put it in
> writing or over the phone, because a lot of human communication is  
> non-
> verbal, and there's an evolutionary reason for that which is part of
> the whole thing.

Restrain yourself to communicate what is communicable. And just hope  
that the people will figure out by themselves what is not communicable  
yet true (like consciousness to take the simplest candidate).

> Perhaps I sound mad, but I have a testable prediction: if I don't
> contact Richard Dawkins, sooner or later somebody, somewhere is going
> to be researching the 2012 Mayan calendar thing and be led, by an
> amazing chain of coincidences, to me.

I don't believe in coincidence. Or better I believe coincidences are  
just that: coincidences. The brain has an habit to over-interpret  
coincidences, and if you search them, you will find more and more, and  
you will take the risk of believing anything, that is to become  
inconsistent. The prohibition of drugs is based on similar form of  
unsound "reasoning".

> And I can explain how that
> works.
> Bruno, when you read this, you are literally an angel of God. Figure
> out who you need to talk to next. I certainly don't know. Maybe it's
> me. Whatever works for you.

I talk to universal machines, because I know everyone is at least such  
a machine, and this is used for showing that what I say can be  
understood by any one having enough patience and good-willingness.

I am not for introducing the non seriousness of some approach from  
some theology in science, I am for using the scientific method  
(modesty) in the theology. You may have misunderstood the approach,  
I'm afraid.

If you see a coincidence, you better forget it, I think. If not you  
take the risk of becoming frustrated (and inconsistent).

I worked hard to derive all what I say from "reasonable  
definitions" (always debatable) and elementary arithmetic, and the a  
priori austere digital mechanist hypothesis.

True: the difference between G* and G can be used to say that the  
(correct) machines can access to some correct "mystical truth" (true  
but unprovable), but it points also on the fact that such machines, in  
that case, remains 100% mute about them. Communicating them publicly  
or assertively leads to the contrary effect(s). It is the trap in  
which all public authoritative theologies fall. It is a trap which  
occurs repeatedly on all spiritual paths. Even this, I should not  
communicate without insisting that I derive this from the mechanist  
*hypothesis*, in the discourse of ideally arithmetically correct  

Take care,


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

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