> On 26 Jul 2018, at 21:45, Jason Resch <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> I would be very interested in this. I am still making my way through "To Mock 
> a Mockingbird".  Thanks!

Nice. I will begin soon a new thread “What is a computation?”.  I will first 
recall the key idea, so that people understand we don’t need a formal 
definition of computation to understand that the notion of universal 
computability entails directly incompleteness. Then I will introduce three 
formal notions of (universal) computation, andI will begin with the 
combinators.  I might go a little bit farer than “To mock a mocking bird”. Then 
I might illustrate all this with the better known notion of Turing machine, and 
says some words on the Diophantine Polynomials too. 

Bruno

-- 
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