On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> Assuming all possible (consistent mathematical) structures is the
> simplest possible hypothesis. The problem with this is that this
> 'whole' might be a bit too large or inconsistent in itself (like
> Russell's Paradox), and like I've said before, there is no way for us
> finite humans to know an oracle when we see it. If we're a bit more
> modest, we can use the only mathematical notion that we know to be
> truly universal - computation as by CTT.
> OK. The main problem also is in the self-localization in the possible math
> structure. Comp entails a first person indeterminacy which distribute us in
> the mathematical reality, and what we perceive might NOT be a purely
> mathematical structure, but something "supervening" on it from the inside
> view. This is a point missed by people like Chalmers, Tegmark, Schmidhuber,
> etc.
Bruno, would you say that Tegmark has still missed the point, given this
article he co-authored:




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