Re: Asifism revisited.

From: Torgny Tholerus <torgny.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:32:28 +0200

Bruno Marchal skrev:

Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

Bruno Marchal skrev:

I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.

Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.

When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the same way as our universe is existing.

The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a intended model ("universe") admits automatically an infinity of non isomorphic models (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).

Yes, you are right, the word "model" is not quite appropriate here.  The universe is not a model that satisfies a set of axioms.

The kind of rules I am thinking of, is rather that kind of rules you have in Game of Life.  When you have a situation at one moment of time and at one place in space, you can compute the situation the next moment of time at the same place by using the situations near this place.  The important thing is that the rules uniquely describes the whole universe by applying the rules over and over again.

(But I want something more general than GoL-like rules, because the GoL-rules presupposes that you have a space-time from the beginning.  I want a set of rules that are such that the space-time is a result of the rules.  But I don't know how to get there...)

Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*), which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the degree of plausibility of comp.

I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules.  Just as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe the result of a set of rules.  But these rules are more complicated than the GoL-rules...

--
Torgny Tholerus

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 07:32:40 PDT