On 11/13/2012 10:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a cost in resource utilization (or entropy generation) to gain knowledge.

I can still agree. Then the comp consequence is that the physical resources are derivable from a notion of arithmetical resource.

Dear Bruno,

   Could you explain this idea of arithmetical resource in depth?

Just imagine the universal dovetailer. It generates and implements, and execute all programs. The infinite resource of arithmetic is just that we agree that for all x, there is a y with y > x. It is trivial. PA proves AxEy(x < y & x ≠ y)

Dear Bruno,

My claim is that the phrase that you used above "...we agree that for all ...." is just another way of thinking of my definition of reality as "That which is incontrovertible for some collection of observers that can communicate with each other". It is the mutual agreement between all participants, be they electrons or amoeba or human or galactic clusters, that makes a reality "real". This is a result of taking seriously the consequences of many minds and their mutual statistics. It allows us to derive many properties and conditions that have to be just assumed to be the case of postulated in single mind theories. What I am proposing is a way to bridge between Universals and Nominals to eliminate what I believe to be a false dichotomy in ontology. This is not a matter of choice or contrivance. We see something like this in any system of interactions between many entities. For example, if I find the local valuation of currencies to be inconsistent with my goods and services then I will not be able to interact in a local economy. If I do not find the Doctors in a universe to able to determine the proper level of functional substitution of my brain then my ability to be independent of a particular physical body in that universe cannot occur.

May be you are still skeptical that the elementary arithmetical relations implement all computations, but this is the big thing discovered by Post, Church, Kleene, and others and which is the base of computer science.

My problem is that I do not understand how you stratify the many levels of significance of the numbers. You propose that {0,1, +, *} are ontologically primitive and then jump over what ontological process generates all things from that basis set of primitives. I have been considering a Heraclitean view that takes Becoming as fundamental, but you seem intent on keeping your ontology as Changeless. I am baffled as to how you seem OK to use the language of Becoming (as you use verbs and discuss actions at the arithmetic level) but never discuss how the Becoming or Change comes to be.

Matiyasevitch extended such result by showing that for getting the Turing universality, the diophantine polynomial of degree four are enough.

    Sure, but his work does not solve the ontological problem.



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