I would say that Carroll believes that matter exists. He looks suspicious of ideal mathematical objects existing in Platonia, even though there is no explicit discussion about this in his book.

Hence, it looks like normal physicalism. Well, Carroll refers to his theology as poetic naturalism.

The difference, in my view, is not that big though.


Am 15.10.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Bruno Marchal:

On 11 Oct 2016, at 19:43, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is
actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit
more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he

Either it solves the measure problem, without using the quantum
solution (easy!), but in that case it is Turing equivalent with
"Universal Dovetailer", true (or provable) sigma_1 sentences, etc.
And then the task remains to deduce it from qG and qG*, to get the
genuine qualia relevant with the possible available quanta.

Not yet got the time to look at this. Busy times.

Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well.
He takes a compatibilist position in respect to free will: free
will is compatible with the determinism.

Thanks God!

At the same time, he says that his equation is the very strong
intellectual achievement of the mankind.

Now I have a doubt.

I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game
of Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the
game printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat
analogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what
form the rules of the game should appear, but this after all gives
some freedom to invent such a game.

I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
on a sheet of paper, nothing else.

What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a
self-explaining Game of Life in that sense?

It is a standard result in mathematical logic that this is what
happens already in elementary arithmetic. Even just he polynomial
diophantine equation are like that.

And we are always confronted to our first person self localization
relatively to an infinity of "competing on your continuation"
universal machines "execution".

What is Sean Carroll theology? If it is an Aristotelian, it has to
provide the relevant non computationalist theory of mind to make it
internally consistent.

I can't insist more to study the mathematical theory of
self-reference (Gödel, Löb, ...) and its relation with the theory of
computability (Turing, Church, Post, Kleene, ...). Incompleteness
makes basically the rationalist and mystic theory of Moderatus of
Gades (and quite many variants) coherent, and somehow necessary.

You have to extract physics from self-reference if you want benefits
from the G - G* difference and manage the quanta and the qualia, the
sounds and the senses, the justifiable sense and the probable
theology which includes the natural science as a sort of limiting
bord of the universal mind (the mind of the universal machine).

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read before Sean Carroll
still assumes the theology of Aristotle (the belief in "Primary
Matter", or in its more modern epsitemological version
"physicalism"), doesn't he?



P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to