On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[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.

What does that have to do with "everything exists", which is not only incoherent, but it is empirically false?  There is this myth that "everything exists" or "everything happens" is a consequence of quantum mechanics and it therefore proved by physics.  But quantum mechanics predicts probability(x)=0 for many values of x, c.f. arXiv:0702121

Brent



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.
For more options, visit 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] <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.
For more options, visit 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.

Reply via email to