Mirek, Le 28-nov.-07, à 17:32, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit :
> > Hi Bruno, > > I'm ready. Luckily, it is not long time ago, I've received my > university > degree in CS, so it was rather easy to follow :-) > > Sincerely, > Mirek Thanks for telling me that you are ready. Now I feel a bit guilty because today and tomorrow I get unexpected work, and next week I am teaching again. I hope that those who have no university degree in CS have been able to follow the thread too. I will try to resume the last exercise tomorrow, (one last post on Cantor's diagonal), and then, I will write, during next week, the key post, which will prove an absolutely fundamental theorem on the Universal Machines, a theorem without which UDA would be stuck in the sixth step, and without which the lobian interview would not make sense. The theorem says that ALL universal machines are insecure or imperfect. I guess some of you can already guess or produce the proof (in company of a general definition of "secure machine", 'course). Torgny, You should be clearer about when you work *in* your ultrafinistic theory and when you work in its metatheory. If not, Quentin is right to ask you not to mention any sort of "infinite" of any kind. Most of the time, it is very hard to make sense of your approach, due to the lack of a clear distinction between the ultrafinistic theory and the informal metatheory you do refer to, very often. Note that without the movie graph (the 8th step of the UDA), comp remains coherent *only* through an explicitly physicalist version of ultrafinitism and an explicitly dualist theory of Mind (perhaps you should collaborate with Marc?). Mind would need matter (but then why, and what is it?), and the UDA would not go through because we would live in a unique and then very little universe. I guess everythingers would be skeptical at the start, here. Also the quantum facts are going in an opposite direction, imo. Actually, the movie-graph prevents such a move, I think. We can go back on this, later. To be sure I am open to critics there, I am not entirely satisfied with my presentation of the argument, and both George and Russell did succeed in making me thinking a lot more on that issue, or of the way to present it perhaps (more than I was expecting). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
