your reply is appreciable (I donot use the pun: remarkable and write
'remarks' to it);

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

>  On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
>  Dear Bruno,
> congrats to yur interjected question: *"What does not exist then?"*
> It is cute.
> If I really HAVE to reply: *"The R e s t of the world".* And if you
> insist to spell it out, you just 'create' it. <G>
> <G>

>   I appreciate your mostly agreeing words, one question though:
> how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?*
> Universal machine are confronted with many problems. Avoiding looping,
> avoiding crashing, avoiding inconsistencies, avoiding incorrectness. They
> have duties: adding themselves and multiplying themselves, with all the
> relative troubles that result from the impossible "simple" merging of the
> addition and multiplcations laws (with the numbers: I could have taken
> abstraction and application with the lambda terms instead).
> The Löbian machine knows that she is universal, and so can grasp the
> preceding paragraph, and get in that way even much more questions, and she
> can discover even more sharply her abyssal ignorance. Löbianity is the step
> where the universal machine knows that whatever she could know more, that
> will only make her more ignorant with respect to the unknown. Yet, the
> machine at that stage can also intuit more and more the reason and
> necessity of that ignorance, and with comp, study the approximate
> mathematical description of parts of it.
JM: looks to me that Univ. Mach. is a fictional charater like Alice in
Wunderland, equipped with whatever you need to make it work. Like (my)
infinite complexity.

> somebody suggested to say 'organism' au lieu de machine, but it is not a
> fair transformation.

>   Finally I am too ignorant to appreciate 'ontological' in my worldview:
> in an *everything* that constantly changes it is hard to see 'being' vs.
> 'becoming'.
But how can "everything" change? You can only change relatively to
something else.---

I think that change is an experience from inside. It follows, I think, from
the hypothesis that we might survive through a computer emulation (my
working hypothesis).
The everything is the being, and the change, or the becoming, or the
creation and the annihilation, is how the everything looks from inside, in
amnesic state with respect of the "everything" somehow.
Universal machine are not necessarily just curious, they can be anxious
too. They want to know if there is a pilot in the plane and a ground under
their foot.

>  And then there is nothing a universal machine can't be more in love than
> ... another universal machine. And then the tendency to reproduce and
> multiply, in many directions, that they inherit from the numbers and which
> leads to even more complexity and life, I would say.
The arithmetical reality is full of life, populated by many sorts of
universal numbers, with many possible sort of relations, and this put a
sort of mess in the antic Platonia, and leads to transfinite unboundable
complexity indeed.

> Bruno

JM: intriguing idea about the 'change', indeed. I feel English semantics in
it (French is even worse: changer is really "from..into") - what I
understand as my non-Anglo 'change' is a constant alteration of
observables, some would put into the meaning of 'life' or 'creation'.
>From "inside"? a loose cannon: if I am observing something from 'outside of
it' I still can see it change.
You may argue that I am still within a larger 'inside'.
Sorry to get bugged down into semantical bickering.
John M


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