Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

From: Marchal <>
Date: Wed Jul 4 09:26:45 2001

Brent Meeker wrote (out of line, but I guess it is by error):

>I'm a little unclear on the ontological hierarchy of your TOE. Do you
>propose to show that, out of all computations, all our conscious
>experiences are recovered (by somehow identifying appropriate histories
>corresponding to "us" in "this world"). And then, from our common
>experiences, physics is inferred.

Yes. (Number law) => (computer law) => (mind law) => (physical law)
roughly speaking.

>Or - do you propose to show that, out of all computations, almost all of
>them entail a regular physics and in particular a physics similar to
>that which we observe, and from this physics arises our being and
>consciousness according to the scientific processes which we already

No. Actually most consistent continuations have white rabbits,
and white noise.

I am still open that the "little" program, if it exists is any QUD,
i.e. any Quantum Universal Dovetailer. Not because it generates
less white rabbits, but because it generates *much more* white rabbits!
The reason is that it generates also much more -anti white rabbits-
so that there are eliminated in the average. But even this "idea" I
feel it necessary to deduce it from the "universal" interview.

(look at my post to Georges Levy containing a partial technical
result in that direction which gives the embryo of the reason why
"point of views makes angles",
and why interference of the "probabilities" are possibly necessary

Received on Wed Jul 04 2001 - 09:26:45 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST