> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute >>> > simplest and with the least assumptions. It comes from pure >>> > mathematical truth concerning integers. You don't need set theory, or >>> > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single >>> > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in >>> > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less. >>> >>> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible >>> algorithms. Another instance of proving too much. >>> >>> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world >>> and only this world that would be something. >>> >>> Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to >>> exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each >>> individual being within that everything should also be able to see >>> everything. >> >> So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really >> happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth") you >> couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able to >> see all those novels play out. >> >> If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you >> shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then you >> can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a criticism of the >> theory. > > However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to reject it. > > You could, but Robinson arithmetic is fairly coherent, in my opinion.
Indeed. Robinso Arithmetic, or Shoenfinkel-Curry combinator theory proves the existence of a quantum universal dovetailer. Of course that does not solve the mind-body problem, we have still to extract it from self-reference to distinguish qualia and quanta. If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x and Sxyz (+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic (unlike Robison arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all this fresh in my head because I have just finished a thorough course on this. Combinators are also interesting to explain what is a computation and for differentiating different sorts of computation, including already sort of “physical computation”. Yet it would be treachery to use this directly. To distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract them from Löb’s formula, and use Löbian combinators. I will probably type a summary here. Bruno > > Jason > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
