On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >For certain choices of "this or that", the ultimate reality is
> >actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
> >basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely
> >unknowable to the denizens of that computation.
> Not really. With comp we know that the *physical* "bottom" is the
> result of the competition among all universal machines, (by UD-7 or
> 8) and this leads to (re)define physics by such a
> competition/measure on all computations. The initial base ontology
> is really irrelevant, and it makes no sense to choose one or
> another, except for technical commodities.
> Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware
> and wetware are emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be
> described by numbers or combinators as they describe the same
> computations and the same object: you can prove the existence of
> combinators in arithmetic, and you can prove the existence of
> numbers from the combinator S and K. So the basic ontology is really
> the same and we can "know" it (betting on comp). It is really like
> the choice of a base in a linear space.
> Bruno

We're in perfect agreement here, actually, just expressing it differently!


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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