Hello, Bruno,
and thanks for your reply.
I am sorry for an interjected remark-sentence quite out of context in a
topic it does not belong at all. Especially since it was mal-chosen and
mal-formulated.
I enjoyed your teaching about the UM etc., I could use it.
I am presently mentally anchored in my own ignorance (i.e. my
agnosticism-based worldview formulation) of a 2011 level stance.

Best regards

John

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I indulge myself in a slight correction on a statement, that you were just
> doing for a second time, despite I thought having already insisted on the
> point. I am sorry because it is not completely in the topic:
>
>
>  On 07 Apr 2011, at 17:42, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  Thanks, Brent, - however:
>  I did not restrict myself to physics (lest: 'fundamental') and had a
> shorthand-typo in my text:
>      - - -   (=cause)   - - -
> which indeed means:  "a change, effected by - what we call: a cause".
> I was referring to our (conventional) system looking only inside the
> 'model' of already knowable knowledge, even those applied only "as needed"
> to identify cause - or effect.
> The unknown 'rest of the world' also influences those changes we may
> experience within our model so our consclusions are incomplete.
> That does not apply to a universal machine which 'knows it all' -
>
>
>
> Universal machine knows about nothing.
>
> They are universal with respect to computability, or emulability, or
> simulability. Not on provability, believability or knowability.  Typically
> all humans being are universal machines. I can argue that bacteria are
> already universal machine.
>
> The UMs know about nothing, but they can become wise, that is Löbian. This
> is when they realize that they are universal (in some sense which I can make
> precise) in that case, they still know about nothing, but they know that
> they know nothing, and they can know why it is necessary that they know
> nothing. They also know that if they develop knowledge, their
> ignorance-space will grow even more, so that by learning, they can only be
> proportionnally more ignorant. that is why they become extremely modest.
>
> In the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus hypostases, the universal
> machine is the arithmetical correspondent of man. God is arithmetical truth,
> and for "Him/It/Her" there is a sense to say that He/It/her knows
> everything, but It is far beyond what *any* machine can grasp. Machines
> cannot even give It a name, unless they assume that they are machine, in
> which case the label "Truth" can indirectly be applied.
>
> Universal machine are more like universal baby than omniscient knower.
> With the Church-Turing Thesis, your laptop *is* a universal machine. The
> universal Turing machine is universal. All computer's are. And I can argue
> that all living cells are universal.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  but we indeed have no idea how it works and what it may conclude.
> Deduced in my common sense of agnostic ignorance.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>   On 4/6/2011 2:06 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> The exchange between SPK and Bruno is hard to personalize, there is am
>> unmarked paragraph after a par marked "...
>> so I was in doubt whether it is Bruno, or Stephen who wrote:
>>
>>      *"His use of the word "causation" is unfortunate but we can forgive
>>      him because there is no correct word for the relation that he is
>>      considering....." *
>> **
>> Both mathematical and philosophical "causation" is partial: all we can
>> consider as instigating a 'change' (= cause?) may only come from the part of
>> the totality we already know of and include into that partivular model used
>> in our consideration, while the influences of the still unknown factors are
>> included (active?) as well (not to mention those known ones we neglected in
>> our limited thinking).
>> In precise thinking such uncertainty interferes with applying 'correct'
>> vocabulary.
>>
>> John M
>>
>>
>> In fundamental physics where evolution is time-symmetric, the distinction
>> between cause and effect is just an arbitrary choice.  In more practical
>> terms cause usually refers to some part of a process we could chose to
>> control.  If a cable breaks and drops something, we say the accident was
>> caused by cable failure - because what we think we could have done to
>> prevent the accident is use a better cable.  We don't say gravity caused it
>> because we can't turn off gravity.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>   --
> 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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to