Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-30 Thread Kim Jones
On 28/12/2008, at 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With Everett everything becomes clearer: nature does not collapse the wave, and thus, does not provide any examples of a machine generating truly random events. Randomness appears in the mind of the multiplied observers, exactly like in the

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2008, at 20:50, Günther Greindl wrote: I agree with Bruno that all empirical evidence in this universe suggest that CT = PCT. But this need not be so, in a logical sense. Indeed. UDA shows that PCT is a mysterious, if not *the* mystery with CT. Logicaly, and a priori, CT

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kim, I'm afraid I probably don't understand your question. It seems to me you are using in an informal context some terms like if they have precise meaning. I will make a try, so as to be clearer on the point raised by Günther and Abram. On 26 Dec 2008, at 22:49, Kim Jones wrote:

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
2008/12/26 Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com wrote: And this assumption is quite close to comp in the sense that nobody knows about any natural machine not being turing emulable. Even quantum machine, accepting QM without collapse. That is true, but we have to be careful in our

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Günther, On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:01, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every scientifically minded person. Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted? Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2008, at 20:10, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, But no weakening of comp based on nature is known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion. I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before on the

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2008, at 22:27, Kim Jones wrote: On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Abram Demski
Bruno, In one sense those examples are things for which (finite) reasoning fails, but I would still say that they are governed by (finite) rules and possess a (finite) description-- the problem is merely that it takes infinite amounts of time to derive the consequences of those

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Abram Demski
Bruno, Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting... unfortunately it is also very expensive. --Abram On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 26 Dec 2008, at 20:24, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, In one sense those examples are things for which (finite) reasoning fails, but I would still say that they are governed by (finite) rules and possess a (finite) description-- Yes but we have to bet we share the standard interpretation

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Kim Jones
On 27/12/2008, at 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: nd sometimes, even that is not enough, and you have to climb on the higher infinities. I think Kim was asking for an example of well- defined notions which are not effective. The existence of such non effective objects is not obvious at all

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Abram, Thanks for the reference. That book sounds very interesting... unfortunately it is also very expensive. Then don't buy it. In my opinion, well to get the AUDA, the following one are without doubt more genuine. Actually I complained often that the Boolos 1979 book was out of stock

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that is governed by rules and has a definite description. Then Church thesis entails it is not broader,

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-25 Thread Günther Greindl
Bruno, This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every scientifically minded person. Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted? Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote scientifically minded - if you are in any way naturalist (and all the

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-25 Thread Günther Greindl
Bruno, But no weakening of comp based on nature is known to escape the replicability. Even the non cloning theorem in QM cannot be used to escape the UDA conclusion. I already wanted to ask you on this one: you have said before on the list that quantum-no cloning does not make a problem

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-25 Thread Kim Jones
On 26/12/2008, at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Dec 2008, at 08:05, Abram Demski wrote: Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that is governed by rules and has a definite

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-25 Thread Abram Demski
Kim, Right, that can't be done-- maybe such a system exists, but if so then our rationality basically fails to apply to it. So as Gunther says, the broader version of mechanism can be granted by every scientifically minded person. --Abram On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Kim Jones

Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-24 Thread Günther Greindl
Kim, Bruno, Not at all. You have already done the first and last leap of faith of the reasoning when accepting the digital brain at the first step. I am aware that you are not aware of that, because in the reply you seem to believe that the MEC hypothesis can be taken for granted. But it

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Dec 2008, at 16:41, Günther Greindl wrote: Kim, Bruno, Not at all. You have already done the first and last leap of faith of the reasoning when accepting the digital brain at the first step. I am aware that you are not aware of that, because in the reply you seem to believe

Re: Machines was:Kim 2.1

2008-12-24 Thread Abram Demski
Bruno, I agree with Gunther about the two types of machine. The broader machine is any system that can be logically described-- a system that is governed by rules and has a definite description. Such machines are of course not necessarily computable; oracle machines and so on can be logically