Hi Colin,

I'm having a read through your paper now, and have a few comments to
keep the juices of debate flowing on this list.

Firstly, I'd like to say well done - you have written a very clear
paper in what is a very murky subject.

I have two comments right now - but I haven't finished, so there could
well be more.

1) Your definition of COMP is more along the lines of Deutsch's
physical Turing principle, or Thesis P. Wikipedia seems to call it the
strong CT thesis. It is important to note that it is a stronger
assumption than Bruno's COMP assumption, and indeed Bruno has already
given a proof that physics cannot be computable - so you might be
proving the same thing via a different method.

Nevertheless, I haven't seen yet whether weakening your definition of COMP
invalidates your argument though

2) A few times through the text you make remarks along the lines of
"it might appear that laws of nature might still be accessible by an
extreme form of the randomized-search/machine-learning approach, even
though it is obvious that human scientists do not operate this way."

"Obvious"? It is far from obvious. What you say flies directly in the
face of Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations", and you would face a
horde of angry Popperians if you were to post this stuff on the FoR

Anyway, I'll keep reading.



Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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