Re: UDA revisited

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:58:44 +1100

Fair enough. I was just meaning that one cannot 1-tell as you put
it. I agree that it may be possible to empirically distinguish between
living in a UD and not in a UD, although that remains to be seen.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:40:04AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 20-nov.-06, 23:19, Russell Standish wrote (in part):
> > The first one? It doesn't matter whether you're implemented using a UD
> > running on a bare physical substrate, as on a 15th nested UD or a
> > Googolplex+1 th nested one. You cannot tell the difference from the
> > inside - that's the point of computationalism.
> My point is that we can. From inside, just because locally you cannot
> know if you are in the 15th nested UD, or the 16th nested UD, or the
> 17th nested UD, etc., it follows that from inside to compute any
> prediction you have to sum up on them (the nested UD) all, and this
> entails verifiable empirically propositions.
> > Just as importantly, if
> > there were an infinite nest of UDs, or the UD nest looped so that the
> > UD in which you're implemented also executed itself, you still couldn't
> > tell.
> I can. To sum up, it is really because I cannot 1-tell the difference
> between any computation capable of simulating "me", that I can, by
> observation, get evidence (or refutation) that reality is an
> arithmetical video game. The "sum on all computations" comes from this
> fact alone.
> This follows already from the UDA, but should be transparently clear
> with the AUDA (Arithmetical translation of the UDA).
> More in my reply to Tom.
> Bruno
> >
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Nov 21 2006 - 16:59:30 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST