Hi Stephen,

On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
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
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
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<marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> ...
>> 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: http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-of_30.html 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!

Well thanks. But it is not a question of liking the UD, but of grasping the UDA. If you are not yet convinced I am interested to know at which step of the reasoning you have a problem. (in the sane04 there is 8 steps, but the eighth step better presentation has been done in this list under the name MGA).

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...

It depends of which theory you are using. If we are digital machine, one is correct (Plato) and the other one is wrong (Aristotle). It is as simple as that. Please study the argument. It is a bit important given that the Aristotelian theology is the usual paradigm, except among greeks intellectuals during the -500 to 523 period.

I found a cartoon explanation of Lob’s Theorem yesterday that I thought I would pass along:


It is full of inadequacies. It confuses mathematical induction and inductive inference. It confuse Gödel's theorem and Tarski theorem, and it makes the proof of Löb looking more difficult than it really is, at least if you know Gödel's diagonalization lemma. The cartoon idea is cute , though. A good book on this is Smullyan's book "Forever Undecided" (which contains inaccuracies only in some philosophical remark, and this assuming comp, which Smullyan does not).

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!

For UDA you don't need math. Only a passive understanding of what a 'universal machine is'. For AUDA, you need familiarity with provability and modal logics.

Have a nice day,



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