Hi Evgenii,

On 04 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Thanks for answers. As usual, they are very enjoyable.

From my side I can offer nothing more. I guess that at the moment my point of view is some eclectic mixture, basically I am just collecting different ideas and theories.

I should say that some long time ago I used to have Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Church (in Russian) and I believe that I have even read the introduction in the book. I admire the nice equations in mathematical logic but I am not sure that I am able to comprehend them.

I have the book by Church, it is not the simplest one. I love his smaller book on lambda-calculus though, but Church missed Church thesis! "Church thesis" is a vocable made by Kleene, and it is really people like Post, Turing, and Kleene who get the point, imo.

I wanted to read Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Sipser that you recommend

I am not sure. i recommend usually Cutland, Rogers, or, Mendelson, Boolos and Jeffrey (+ Burguess for later edition), or Epstein and Carnielly.
Don't mind too much :)

but now I take the course Embryogenesis Explained in the Second Life and this is enough for the moment. Look for example here


Astonishing, isn't it?

Beautiful and wonderful.

Astonishing? I know I will perhaps look presumptuous, but I think that Kleene's second recursion theorem provides the conceptual solution of the Descarte-Driesch self-reproduction problem, I can argue that a generalization of Kleene's theorem provides the conceptual solution of embryogenesis, even of self-regeneration. I wrote a paper on that for the first european meeting on artificial life ("Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming Machine"). I wrote a program 'planaria', having a lot of different subroutines, and which is such that when a subroutine (any of them) is isolated and given some flag as input, it regenerates the entire program. I even programmed an infinite planarian.

For theology, fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, all the use of the second recursion theorem is encapsulated in the theorem by Solovay, linking the modal logic G and G* to the self-reference abilities of what I call the Löbian entities (notably the Löbian numbers , the Löbian theories, the Löbian machines, and a large spectrum of Löbian 'supermachine').

In "conscience et mécanisme", the long version of my PhD thesis, I do both the abstract biology and the abstract theology. Abstract biology takes the second recursion theorem as a fundamental theorem. Abstract theology takes as fundamental theorem the fact that some machine can prove a form of the second recursion theorem. It is known in the literature as the "Gödel's diagonalization lemma".

You make a good choice to study embryogenesis, it is a fundamental and deep process. My initial motivation comes from biology. I learned and discovered computer science in the molecular genetics of bacteria, notably through the famous paper by Jacob and Monod on the 'lactose operon" (the genetical regulation of enzymes managing the sugar "lactose"). Without the little book on Gödel's theorem by Nagel and Newman, I might have become a molecular biologist :)

I still love Planarians.


And here a planarian with 8 heads!

I was used to have planarian as pets, a long time ago.

Best wishes,


on 03.03.2011 10:48 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Hi Evgenii,

I understand how the hypothetico-deductive way is working and I am
amazed by expressions in mathematical logic. Yet, sometimes it is
not bad to start from the end, this might also help.

I agree. The amazing thing is that if we start from the end, we get
... Plotinus or Plotinus-like platonist theology. For some people,
this is enough to stop the conversation. It just means that they
believe that some Aristotelian dogma cannot be criticized.

Say I do not understand how many first persons views are allowed in
your theory and if this number is more than one, how they interact
with each other.

I start from the mind body problem, and from the digital mechanist
hypothesis. I show this makes us *very* ignorant.

So I will be franc. The problem of interaction is not solved at all,
even between third person describable objects. And the problem of
how many first person "really" exist is also an open problem,
although I tend more and more to believe that there is only one first
person: the universal person described by the arithmetical
hypostases. Although personal consciousness is not an illusion,
self-identity can be. But, please note that I am speculating here.
And there do exist some evidence that the numbers of person could be
at least two. That would be the case if the "whole truth" is a sort
of person. Very complex question.

If to speak of love, we need at least two persons. Hence in my view
love cannot exist in the Schroedinger's The Oneness of Mind. Love
is much closer to Sartre who accepts that others also exist.

Not necessarily. First a person might be able to love herself. Also,
a unique person might split in different person/memories (like in the
WM duplication) and "forget" she is the same person, so that a two
partners love relation could make sense. For love being manifest, we
need some relative differences, but also a form of more absolute

The problem is that the notion of 'first person' is absolute when
seen by the first person, and relative when observed in the third
person perspective.

But my point is more that with the comp hyp we can make those
questions mathematical and derived information from hypotheses. Then
we might or not appreciate the consequences, and decide if we like or
not the hypotheses, but when doing science we have to be prepared to
some friction with possible wishful thinking.

This leads to the question: is truth (unknown but approachable)
necessarily good to know? I have no answer, but I tend to bet that in
the long run it is better not to hide it. Hiding truth cost a lot,
and when the truth appears it is even more shocking when it has been
hidden for a long time. I defend an "harm reduction" ethical


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to