- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:41:07 -0800

A. Wolf wrote:

*>> So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)...
*

*>> would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value.
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*> Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting
*

*> the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for sapience?
*

*>
*

*> Anna
*

*>
*

"Capable of supporting" implies some physical laws that connect an

environment and sapient beings. In an arbitrary list universe, the

occurrence of sapience might be just another arbitrary entry in the list

(like Boltzman brains). And what about the rules of inference? Do we

consider universes with different rules of inference? Are universes

considered contradictory, and hence non-existent, if you can prove X and

not-X for some X, or only if you can prove Y for all Y?

You see, that's what I like about Bruno's scheme, he assumes a definite

mathematical structure (arithmetic) and proposes that everything comes

out of it. I think there is still problem avoiding wonderland, but in

Tegmark's broader approach the problem is much bigger and all the work

has to be done by some anthropic principle (which in it's full

generality might be called "the Popeye" principle - "I yam what I

yam."). Once you start with all non-contradictory mathematics, you

might as well let in the contradictory ones too. The Popeye principle

can eliminate them as well.

Brent

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Fri Nov 07 2008 - 19:41:16 PST

Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:41:07 -0800

A. Wolf wrote:

"Capable of supporting" implies some physical laws that connect an

environment and sapient beings. In an arbitrary list universe, the

occurrence of sapience might be just another arbitrary entry in the list

(like Boltzman brains). And what about the rules of inference? Do we

consider universes with different rules of inference? Are universes

considered contradictory, and hence non-existent, if you can prove X and

not-X for some X, or only if you can prove Y for all Y?

You see, that's what I like about Bruno's scheme, he assumes a definite

mathematical structure (arithmetic) and proposes that everything comes

out of it. I think there is still problem avoiding wonderland, but in

Tegmark's broader approach the problem is much bigger and all the work

has to be done by some anthropic principle (which in it's full

generality might be called "the Popeye" principle - "I yam what I

yam."). Once you start with all non-contradictory mathematics, you

might as well let in the contradictory ones too. The Popeye principle

can eliminate them as well.

Brent

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Fri Nov 07 2008 - 19:41:16 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST
*