Le 21-juil.-12, à 20:04, Stephen P. King a écrit :

## Advertising

On 7/21/2012 7:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:Hi Stephen,I appreciate very much Louis Kauffman, including that paper. But Idon't see your point. Nothing there seems to cast any problem forcomp or its consequences.Why not read the MGA threads directly, and address the pointsspecifically?I already did. My contention is that computational universality isNOT the separation of computations from physical systems, it is theindependence of a given computation from any one particular physicalsystems.

`Computational universality is an arithmetic notion. You don't need UDA`

`to separate it from physics, you need only a good intro to computer`

`science. This critics is wrong at the very start.`

`The independence of a given computation from any particular physical`

`system is obviously part of the comp assumption, and should not be`

`confused with the impossibility of any physical system to capture or`

`produce consciousness, which is related to the mathematical and the`

`theological by comp, and that is the consequence of UDA including MGA.`

`By addressing MGA, I meant you to quote that text, and that text only,`

`and tell me were you disagree, and for what reason.`

The former Seperation is categorical in that one has seperatecategories with no connection between them whatsoever. The latter is aduality between a pair of categories in that for the class ofequivalent computations there is at least one physical system that canimplement it and for a class of equivalent physical systems there isat least one computation that can simulate it. (Equivalent betweenphysical systems is defined mathematically in terms of homologies suchas diffeomorphisms) This idea was first pointed out by Leibniz andknown as Leibniz equivalence. Seehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/Leibniz_Equivalence.html

`This makes sense in Aristotelian physics, which, that is the point,`

`does not make sense if comp is true. Unless you can find a flaw. May be`

`you have a problem with what a proof consists in. Proofs does not`

`depend on the interpretation of the terms and formula occurring in it.`

`A proof in math, and in applied math, is always complete in itself.`

`Keep in mind that comp does not presuppose any theory of physics. It`

`assumes only that the physical reality is Turing complete at least. If`

`not, asking for an artificial digital brain would not make sense.`

Bruno

Bruno Le 20-juil.-12, à 05:34, Stephen P. King a écrit :Hi Bruno and Friends,Perhaps this attached paper by Louis H. Kauffman will be a bitenlightening as to what I have been trying to explain. He calls itnon-duality, I call it duality. The difference is just a matter ofhow one thinks of it.Onward! Stephen --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email toeverything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.<Laws of Form and the Logic of Non-Duality.pdf>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group athttp://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.