On 09 Nov 2012, at 20:12, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/9/2012 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Nov 2012, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:

This is wrong and even the opposite of what I am arguing! I take the argument of comp and stop at step 8 and try to reconstruct a necessary reason for the appearance of a physical world for some large but finite number of observer, where each observer is defined as a sheaf of an infinite number of computations. My reason for stopping at step 8 of the UDA is that I see it as deeply problematic because it does to the physical world exactly what Dennett tries to do with the mind. The elimination of the assumption of a physical world in the argument reduces it to a causally ineffective illusion

Why ineffective? On the contrary, if it was ineffective, there would'nt be physical laws. The physical reality would not exist, still less be Turing complete.

and thus causes the arithmetic body problem.

The body problem = the physical laws. UDA is at first a partially constructive explanation of the body problem. It is a weakness of aristotelianism in metaphysics (weak materialism, naturalism).

You take as a weakness of comp the fact that it reduce the mind-body problem to a body problem, but it is its main qualitative advantage, as it explains how and where the physical laws can come from, and this in a testable way, making comp scientific (Popperian).

A corollary problem that step 8 induces is the implied vanishing of the ability to communicate between minds. You simply refuse to see the problem.

Because it is planly wrong, as the ability to communicate between minds is clearly realized in the arithmetical truth, as I have illustrate more than one times with the emulation of the galaxy made by the UD, or realized through even just the diophantine relations among the numbers.

It seems that you don't understand the UDA.

No, you fail to understand that I can and do understand the UDA and disagree with its conclusion.

Then you must show the flaw, without assuming any other theory.

Indeed you talk about  flaw, and then you never show it,

I never show it in the language of formal symbolic modal logic. Touche, yes.

There is no modal logic in UDA. I am talking about UDA here, not AUDA.

But why do I need to? I am trying to appeal to your intuitions, trying to get you to understand a subtle argument that I do not know how to formally state.

UDA is informal, but rigorous, which does not mean flawless. But if you think there is a flaw, you must tell where it is. If you are polite, you will not say: here is the flaw, but you will say, I don't grasp how you go from this line to that line. But ypou must show the line, and not invoke the fact that you might prefer to reason in some other theory.

you just point on your different opinion, and you just provide links like if I should read them to find a flaw.

No, I provide links for people to read if they wish to know more about a particular idea that I am appealing to.

But that is only advertizing, and it divert you from showing the flaw.

But this is not a valid way to proceed. Whatever *you* can read and which can help you to find the flaw, should help *you* to find it.

This would be a good criticism if I was guilty of not understanding the UDA.

So do you agree with steps 1-7. In a big primitive physical universe running the UD, the laws of physics are determined by the relative measure on computations (in arithmetic or in that UD, as they are the same). many people find that this is enough for the reversal, and that the assumption of a primitive physical universe is already refuted. Step 8 helps to make that precise.

If it is genuine, I will recognize it, even without reading anything more.

    Not a humble statement!

On the contrary, it is a humble statement. it means that I am open minded toward the idea that that someone finds a flaw. It is just a logical point of reasoning and proving that we don't need to read more to find a flaw. No amount of mathematical discovery can change the discovery that there are no non null natural numbers p and q such p^2 = 2 * (q^2).

In science there is just no disagreement, except on axioms or theories. If you believe there is an error, you have to find it and make it clear to everybody. Pointing on your different conception of reality is not the same as finding a flaw in a reasoning.

    Do you admit to the reality of the arithmetic body problem?

It is the modest result of my whole enterprise.

Do you have an explanation of how multiple minds can distinguish themselves from each other and interact with each other such that they can gain new knowledge? I see no evidence of this in your papers.

It is elementary computer science, and I did explain this to you more than once.

Could you be a bit more equanimous with your interpretations?

I think that you might be confusing science and a certain type of philosophy. Convince yourself that you can explain your basic idea to a 14 years old, without any jargon.

I can. I have explained my ideas to several people and they seem to understand it well. I have yet to find a 14 year old that understands what an equivalence is without a lot of explanation. Some people seem to have a very hard problem understanding abstract concepts or that numbers exist independent of particular physical examples of them or to think about their own thoughts.

UDA is already a way to explain AUDA without jargon, somehow, and I have tested fro years on many people, and defended it, with AUDA, as a thesis in computer science, without any problem of understanding. My opponents; literary philosophers, have only attacked me on things that I have never said, and they have their own agenda, unrelated with the topic. I have published everything in the eighties, and as a political opponents to the rule "publish of perish" I publish only when people asked, and insisted.

I have no wish to join those Sophists and Scholastics that are attacking you.

Thanks. So just ask question about what you still miss something, or do a precise critics of the deductive reasoning.

I am equanimous, but I am a scientist dedicated to rigor and precision, and I am working in a field sick of wishful thinking, vague thinking, and a lot of politics, since *many* centuries, and probably in conflict with old brain subroutine, which explains the difficulties, for many.

No, bruno. Science requires the assumption that a physical world exists.

Sure. But Science is still agnostic on the nature (primitive or derivative) of that physical world. Please, it would help if you make precise if you take "physical world" or "primitive physical world". In the first case we traivially agree, and it is bad you might confuse people about this, and in the second case, it is the whole point of UDA, that wopuld contradict computationalism, which the physical reality derivable from a simpler realm (arithmetic, or combinators, etc.).

You are a theoretical logician, not a scientist.


You have just to work more on the clarity issue. You were just contradicting yourself once more in this post, as you keep saying there is a flaw, and now you say that you want to extend the work. Sorry but this does not make sense. I talk frankly. Take it as a mark of respect.

To solve the problem of arithmetic bodies you fist need to see why there is a problem.

Again, it is the whole point of UDA. This means you did not grasp UDA, or perhaps that, as a philosopher, you find it trivial. But in all appearance, it is not trivial for everybody, look at John Clark for example.



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