On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 Jun 2020, at 17:56, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> It predicts everything, so it predicts nothing. AG >> > > It's not unlike the monkey typing at random and coming up with > Shakespeare's plays, or the Bible. AG > > > Using this analogy, it is more like the monkey typing *all* books. Except > that the monkey is elementary arithmetic, and there is non need of > randomness at that stage, and also, the books are not books, but true > (semantic) relations implementing computations, and then physics is shown > to be an internal measure, isolated from the Göde-Löb-Solvay theorem in the > mathematics iff self-reference. > > The theory is Kxy = x together with Sxyz = xz(yz), as I have explained a > year ago. > > The theology is the modal logics G and G*, and the intensional (modal) > variants imposed by incompleteness, and all that is justified without using > more than the two axioms above. > > “My” theory is a sub theory of al scientific theories. > > Look at the conceptual progresses even just on physics: > > Bohr: > - the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis) > - a dualist unintelligible theory of mind. > > Everett > - the wave equation (full arithmetic + analysis) > - Mechanism > > Your servitor: > - arithmetic (a tiny part of arithmetic) > - Mechanism. > > If “my" theory (which is actually a theorem showing that “my” theory is > the Universal machine theory) predicts everything, then all theories > predict everything. > > I suspect that you have not really try to understand the theory. It is not > mine, it is the theory that any patient being can derive from mechanism and > computer science/arithmetic. The hard work have already be done by Gödel, > Kleene, Löb, and others. Two key theorems which summarise a lot are the two > theorem by Solovay, which summarise the theology of the machine in one > modal logic G*. Such question or read the papers if you want to really > address the “mechanist mind-body problem”. > > Bruno >
I am not motivated to study your theory. If all computation are possible, it seems to imply, for example, that any G describes a possible Newtonian gravity law, but can't tell is which G corresponds to our universe, let alone show that Newton's law is just a weak field approximation of GR. AG > > > > > > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42839686-3300-4fb6-bc61-987be7103c1ao%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42839686-3300-4fb6-bc61-987be7103c1ao%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b27beb6d-967e-4c39-b2a5-6cc14836412bo%40googlegroups.com.
