On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:29, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim.
Best,
Bruno
Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics?
It is OK, to ask, but it is delicate.
But it is, partially, the content of two chapters of "the amoeba's
secret".
Very shortly. From 1973 to 1977 I have been manipulated by a
psychopath. The result being that I will be happy teaching mathematics
in high school, to "earn my life", and doing research as a hobby, but
still attending course, conferences, and doing a lot of conferences,
also, and eventually Professor Gochet, a logician will push me to
publish and I will publish "Informatique théorique et philosophie de
l'esprit", which contains a preliminary version of the universal
dovetailer argument (abridged for reason of place), explaining the
first person indeterminacy (FPI), the Movie Graph "Paradox", and then
the main idea of AUDA, that is, how the Dx ="xx" method enable us to
study the logic of the 3p reference, and the 1p reference, although at
that time I was still missing the Theaetetus idea. That was published
in 1988, in Toulouse, France. I exposed it publicly in 1987, where I
will meet Dennett, and that was at the time of its brainstorms book
(my favorite), and Mind's I, which is the book coming the closest to
comp. A new edition should contain some passage from Galouye, and
matrix or "the prestige".
Well, similar circumstances will make me engaged, to teach modal
logic, to a group of people (IRIDIA) interested in Artificial
Intelligence. The psychopath succeeded in making believe everyone that
I was mad, so my own much previous attempt to create a AI lab were
just seen as confirmation that I was mad or crackpot. So when I was
hired in that lab, the department of mathematics will send bullet on
IRIDIA. Then Smets, the creator of IRIDIA, will make pressure on me to
make a PhD thesis, and it is indeed through the search of modal system
for Smets "belief theory" that I will give some faith to the deontic
axiom ([]A -> <>A).
Then I will put down the thesis, but I said to Smets that it would be
better "the psychopath" would not be, well, even close to a jury. That
was delicate, if not impossible. Smets and everybody thought I was
paranoiac.
Eventually I put it down. November 1994.
Quickly, I got the jury, basically the psychopath and
"friends" (victim accomplices).
After month of discussion, smets seem thinking that things go right as
he was invited to a meeting to discuss the extension of the jury,
including more experts with a fair choice between him and the
mathematicians.
That was a trap. The meeting was the, normally formal, decision of
receivability, that is a pre-defense formal decision, quasi
administrative, and they will decide by vote of "experts", that is
even before hearing me even for a minute. They will justify that in a
not that bad report, as all experts recognize not seeing any flaw, but
a literary philosopher was not convinced. (?).
I will defend without problem the thesis elsewhere (Lille), a bit
later due to things of life type of thing.
It is a thesis in computer science, and I will got the best grade, and
people were enthusiast about this, and indeed I will get that prize
about eight month after the defense, as it is an annual prize for the
best thesis in the french community. It is not a scientific prize, but
the jury contained scientists (mathematicians, computer scientists).
But then, those of Le Monde and Grasset told me rewrite it and explain
the story somehow.
That was delicate, it is still is, but again, why should I not trust
them, and I will write it chapters by chapters asking them if that was
OK, and, after some time they get the manuscript, but nothing will
happen, except that Grasset will abandon that contract with "le prix
Le Monde, I will still be reassured that there were just late for some
reason, but then nothing, not even the money, nothing.
In 2009, I get eliminated from the list of laureates on the 1998 year
on the net, which make me decide to prosecute the psychopath and some
of its accomplice victims, just for the peace of my conscience.
A guy in Paris was asked to attribute the FPI to someone else, so for
a time in Paris, it was not really the FPI which was the problem. The
guy was honest and changes the subject, or related it only to QM.
Then the disastrous meeting of the ASSC, in Brussels, pfft, I don't
want to talk on this right now ...
I am partially faulty as I don't submit paper, but I continue to
oblige when asked.
There is a gap between logicians and physicists, the subject matter is
difficult, but here the "little history" has not helped. In a context
where the bigger history (1500 years of authoritative aristotelianism)
is not that more helpful.
At least someone like John Clark tries to argue (I have never met an
"opponent"), and he says something, and gives me hope to convince me
that the FPI might make no sense. Alas, he convinces nobody (including
himself, I think).
So the answer is yes, it is political, even psycho-media-political,
but made easy in a context where doubting Aristotle makes you a bit
out of the ordinary.
Well, if you think sincerely one step in UDA is controversial, please
don't hesitate; I love that subject matter and from time to time I do
met people who genuinely misunderstood it, or ignored it. Some people
unconsciously add a metaphysic which is not there.
You can see it as an extension of Everett to arithmetic, made
necessary when we assume computationalism.
is it really more shocking than Everett? Well shocking does not mean
invalid anyway, when we try to be serious.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
