> On 10 Apr 2018, at 17:14, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:32:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be 
>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au 
>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>> >> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even 
>> >> comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context.
>> > ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the 
>> > archive.
>> Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've 
>> lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno 
>> responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but 
>> he never says where all those brilliant posts are,
> It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of 
> the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the 
> list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first 
> person (1p) view and the third person view.
>> or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually 
>> seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain 
>> to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,
> Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical 
> influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a 
> distance.
> But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep 
> some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his 
> “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown 
> inconsistent already with Mechanism.
>> but once again he just said he already proved that was not true
> ?
> Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non 
> locality question in Everett,  to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or 
> Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm 
> <https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm>
>> in yet another mysterious post nobody has ever seen.
>> > As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.
>> Yes,
> Yes? Which dogmatic belief. You are the one who invoke his ontological 
> commitment to stop reasoning (cf step 3).
> You might try to explain this to Grayson, as he did not follow those 
> discussions, and seems like many to ignore the metaphysical consequence of 
> indexical computationalism.
> I have no clue what it is, to ignore or not. Also, in saying physics is a 
> work in progress, I didn't necessarily mean that consciousness couldn't 
> eventually be included in a Final Theory. So I am not an Aristotelian if that 
> means necessarily believing in the primary nature of physical matter. For me, 
> it's an open question. AG

Good. Then all you need to study is the (mathematical, indeed arithmetical) 
notion of computations. Then you might understand a little theory of 
everything, which I prefer to call “theology” for diverse reason.

But I do not propose that theory. I extracted it in two ways. 

In one way, I start from the intuitive indexical understanding of mechanism: it 
means practically that you survive with your brain/body substituted by a 
(indeed physical) computer. It is the idea that the basic process of my brain, 
at some level of description, are computable, in the precise mathematical sense 
allowed by the Church-Turing Thesis.

In the second way, I show that incompleteness forces the sound universal 
machine to distinguish the Platonic definitions of how the One get Multiple 
when observing itself, basically truth (p), belief (Bp), know (Bp & p), Observe 
(Bp & ~Bf (f is for 0 = 1)), feels (Bp & ~Bf & p).

With Church thesis it is an easy exercise, indeed solved in all textbook of 
mathematical logic, to figure out that the proof of the arithmetical 
existential relation, of the type ExP(x, y, z) with P decidable, emulates all 
computable processes. That’s the sigma_1 formula.

Now all computations are emulated in Arithmetic, indeed in all Models of 

But for the first person views, with rather simple thought experiences you can 
understand what happens, which is that we (we the universal numbers) cannot, 
below our substitution level, determine which computations our consciousness 
differentiates on). We are distributed in a vast (infinite) ocean of dreams, 
which follows from a set of reason of the type (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3). 
If you have enough faith and courage to believe this! 

Church thesis implies a very precise, and arithmetical, notion of universality, 
The mind body problem becomes an interesting body appearance problems, but the 
modal nuances imposed by incompleteness, and, amazingly enough completely 
axiomatised, at the propositional logical level (the two arithmetical 
completeness theorem of Solovay for the modal logic G and G*), we can test 
quickly the platonic definition of matter (intuitively understandable with the 
thought experience), by comparing the logic of the “observe” modality with 
quantum logic, and it fits.

If you don’t like Everett, that is bad news! This extends Everett on the whole 
(sigma_1) arithmetic. The physicists will still obeys to the laws of physics 
(Everett) but the sleepy mathematical dreamer he really is belongs to its won 

The Universal Dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all programs. 
It exemplifies the truth and provability of the sigma_1 sentences. It generates 
also many non halting computations, and we are determined by a relative 
statistics and renormalisation. With computationalism dreams have laws, 
dictated by computer science and/or Arithmetic.

Only a con man can claim that science has decided between Aristotle (reality is 
WYSIWYG) and Plato (Perhaps not).

And with computationalism and Everett, it becomes testable, and, thanks to QM 
(without collapse) we can’t say that we detect evidence for non computable or 
non “non computable recoverable by the measure on the limits of computations.  
In arithmetic, the universal machines “lives” on the border of the true sigma_1 
sentences. By looking at themselves they are already confronted to the non 

If the physical appears to much computable, that could make digital-mechanism 
in trouble, as mechanism implies the importance of diverses degrees of non 
computability, playing some role in physics (relative measures).

You might try to read a sum up easily accessible here:


I published more detailed versions. Before 2007 see my URL, after, see 
Academia.edu ReserachGates.

To bad the God/Non-God debate hides the original question of the antic Chinese, 
Indians and Greeks (and I guess other) which was more like 
Universe/Non-Universe, or one/multiple, or awaken/dream, etc.

Take your time. The platonist universal number are infinitely patient :)


> I doubt you will succeed to be franc, as you are the only person I met who 
> have a problem at this stage. Step seven is more often criticised, because 
> people, especially physicists tend to confuse a computation with a physical 
> computation, like they confuse the notion of reality with the notion of 
> physical reality, which is basically the Aristotelian theology/metaphysics.
>> and yet Bruno claims to be a logician. Very odd.
> I have never claim anything like that. I did refer to my PhD thesis in 
> mathematical logic, for obvious reason.
> Bruno
>>  John K Clark  
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to