On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> 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]> 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 >> > > Also, I don't believe that logic alone, with the postulates of arithmetic, > can distinguish one G from another, to obtain the weak field approximation > of GR, aka Newtonian gravity; or that the measured velocity of light is > independent of the motions of source and recipient. AG >
I got my answer, by default. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4313005b-46dd-40dc-af15-743643cee643o%40googlegroups.com.
