From: Bruno Marchal 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 28 Jun 2011, at 18:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  -----Original Message----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM 
  Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out 

  On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

  > On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following:
  >> On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
  >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal<>
  > ...
  >> The idea that our theories are approaching some metaphysical truth is
  >> essentially just the same as assuming there is some more
  >> comprehensive and coherent theory. I note that Hawking and Mlodinow
  >> recently suggested that we might accept a kind of patch-work set of
  >> theories of the world, rather than insisting on a single coherent
  >> theory.
  > Could you please give references to such a statement? In my view,  
  > this is exactly the way to implement efficiently some simulation of  
  > the world. It is unnecessary for example to simulate atoms until  
  > some observer will start researching them.

  Ah ah, ... but so you can guess that it would be more easy for  
  arithmetic too, in that case. That (a need for patch-work theories in  
  physics) could happen if the partially sharable numbers' 'dreams'  
  don't glue well enough.
  But we don't know that. It is 'just' an open problem in the frame of  
  comp. Arithmetical evidences and empirical evidence is that the dreams  
  glue pretty well, I would say.
    I think Hawking and Mlodinov are assuming that the fundamental  
  reality is physical. The fact that the physical needs patch-work set  
  of theories does not entail that the big picture needs that too, as  
  comp (uda) and "formal arithmetical comp" (auda) illustrate precisely.
  The fact that physicists can arrive to such extremities illustrates  
  perhaps an inadequacy of the metaphysics of Aristotle.


  Dear Friends,
      If I may. A review of the Hawking and Mlodinov  book can be found here:
  While I can only speculate about gluing dreams together, I would like to see 
more detail of “an inadequacy of the metaphysics of Aristotle”. As a student of 
philosophy I am interested in such arguments.

So what do you think about the UD Argument? 

It shows precisely that IF we are digital machine at SOME level, then, roughly 
speaking, Plato and the mystics have the correct conception of reality and 
Aristotle has the wrong one. It might seem amazing, but then, I am just 
reformulating the mind body problem in computer science, using the mechanist 
*hypothesis*. Yet it is constructive, and for each "theory of knowledge" you 
propose, you get its corresponding physics. I illustrate this on the classical 
theory of knowledge (Theaetetus, Plotinus) with believability 'model" by formal 
provability (AUDA).

UDA is a reasoning which shows that "being a machine" makes Aristotle wrong. It 
assumes that consciousness is invariant for a digital substitution at some 
level of description, and it concludes that the consciousness/reality coupling 
*have to* emerge from the internal views of the many universal numbers. Neither 
mind nor matter is arithmetical, but they are natural internal modalities of 
the arithmetical. 

Stephen, do you accept that your daughter marry a digital machine? (For 
example, a human who did already say "yes" to the doctor). Would you say "yes" 
to a doctor who proposes to you a digital artificial brain? 
Would you take an Apple or a Microsoft? :)

You have to grasp UDA, or find a flaw. AUDA is only UDA for the 'dummies', I 
mean UDA for the universal Löbian machines, accepting the classical theory of 
knowledge. It already shows that the observable are not boolean, and are close 
to the quantum. 

Universal numbers have a rich theology which provide an explanation of the 
quanta and the qualia. Those theologies are testable by comparing the 
explanation of the quanta by the universal machine with the empiric facts.

I am afraid you have not study sane04, or I miss something.          




Hi Bruno,

    I like the UD idea. A lot!

    Ah, ok. I think that those two, Plato and Aristotle, where just looking at 
different sides of the same n-sided Dice. No finite theory can ever more than 
just approximate the totality of Existence. We just keep figuring out better 
ways of explaining things... 
I found a cartoon explanation of Lob’s Theorem yesterday that I thought I would 
pass along:

    What I am really interested is where we have lots and lots of PAs 
communicating with each other. (Peano Arithmatic is the character in 
Yudkowsky’s story).... I got to get back to learning some more math. I need to 
write a paper. Have fun!


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