On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 1:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] You are considering only one entity.
This is incorrect. For example the first person plural is defined
in term of duplication of populations of machines sharing
I would like to restrict my discussions to just a few questions
about the comp hypothesis. I do not understand how the AUDA explains
the "duplication of populations of machines sharing universal
numbers/computations". Could you elaborate on this? I asked
previously if there exists an index set or some other way to
identify differences between populations. You didn't seem to know
what an index set is...
Then read the post more cautiously, please, and quote that part. My
specialization is recursion theory, and I was pointing that your use
of "index set" was irrelevant, and did not apply to the 1p.
My confusion is that I see only a single equivalence class of
machines allowed by Tennenbaum's theorem.
When I ask you to explain what is the role of Tennenbaum here, you
escape in even more 1004 fallacies.
Explain it informally so that everyone can get the idea, if there is
one. Avoid any links. Take the time to explain what is a non standard
model, and why "2+2=4" is universally true, that is true in both
standard and non standrad model. Then explains what role you see in
those non standard model, and why they would change something in the
comp results, which I have proved in arithmetic, and so are valid also
for the non standard models.
Where am I going wrong?
You are already in the "not even wrong" territory. You make statements
which are too much unclear, and this is worsened by your constant
appeal to technical jargons.
My problems center around your ideas about 3p-truth!
This, on the contrary is clear but weird, as you refer all the time to
papers using that 3p truth notions. But then for comp, you seem to use
philosophy to resist following a reasoning.
In the comp theory the 3p truth is the truth of the arithmetical
sentences. You should have develop the intuition of it in high school.
It is the simpler known 3p realm. In QM, an example of 3p would be
Everett universal wave function. Most of science is based on 3p
mathematical truth, simple like in economy and classical physics, and
more sophisticated in quantum mechanics and theoretical physics.
Of course I cannot explain comp, nor QM, nor GR, nor anything in
science to someone who stops at "2+2=4", by doing what I feel to be
only premature philosophical resistance.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at