On 09 Aug 2012, at 23:48, John Mikes wrote:

Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to reflect to. Sorry if it causes hardship - JM
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote:
....how can a machine (Loebian?) be curious? or unsatisfied?

Universal machine are confronted with many problems....

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.
The difference is that once you agree on addition and multiplication, you can prove the existence of universal machine, and you can bet that you can implement them in the physical reality, as our concrete physical personal computer, and cells, brain etc, illustrate.
JM: don't you see the weak point in your
            "once you agree"?
I don't know what to agree in (agnosticism) so NO PROOF
- What our 'cells, brain etc. illustrate' is (our?) figment.

OK. I use "agree" with a weaker sense than you. Agreeing with x, does not mean that we believe x is true, but that we conjecture it when lacking other explanation or axiom, or for any other motivation.

Agreeing only means, in science, that we are willing to share some hypothesis, for some time.

In science we only make clear some local momentary *belief*. We never pretend something being true (only pseudo-scientist, or pseudo- religious people do that).

BM: 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).
JM: If I watch you to put on weight, I am not inside you.

OK, but I don't see the point.

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.


JM: I don't want to bore you by "where did that obscure "LIFE" come from? What is it?" and how do you know what a universal (machine? number?) thinks/feels/wants/kisses? because you are ONE? OK, but not the only kind that may be, - I suppose. Do you deny that there may be other kinds of universal anythings? what do THEY love most?

I can always imagine other theories. And that they may be correct.

But we will not progress in one theory, if at each line of our reasoning we propose a different theory.

Then, if we are machine, it can be explained why there is only one kind of universal computable thing. Of course there will be many universal non computable thing, like a universal machine + one oracle. This is well known. Arithmetical truth is itself, in some sense, a universal (and non computable) entity.

...But observable is an internal notion. Nobody can observe the "Universe", by definition of "Universe". -- --??? -- ---

JM: You may argue that I am still within a larger 'inside'.
BM: Indeed. You see the point.

JM: but in such case I've changed the perspective and my conclusions are not comparable. And about 'a' UNIVERSE? In my narrative of a 'Bigbang' story I visualize unlimited number and quality of universes. Some may be able to observe others. "We" are too simplistic for that. And - our thinking is adjusted to such simplicity, I am not proud to say so. Agnostic? Ignorant?

Science is agnostic and ignorant. With comp, it can lead only to more agnosticism and ignorance. Science is only a lantern on the infinite unknown, and the more we put light on it, the more we can realize its bigness, and the amazingly shortness of our sight.

We do agree on this, and all universal machines looking inward, and staying consistent in the process knows that.

Like I said, the comp theory assesses a lot of what you say, and explains it also, in someway. This does *not* mean it is the correct theory, as this we will never know.



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