Re: My history or Peters??

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:49:18 2001

Gordon wrote:

>Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>
>> >[GORDON]This is not Everett or Deustch this is still the CI approach
>> >just with more Observers to Create the Single Universe from there Magic
>> >Computer minds,which bring me to something else are you saying also that
>> >the Math(comp)Structures came before Physical Reality?
>> >
>> >I would say Without the Physical how can we think of the math :)
>>
>> Please Gordon I have always defend the idea that there is no collapse,
>> nor any single history/universe.
>>
>[GORDON]I am sorry on that one,but from what you have said before
>sounded like the Philosophy of Collapse was I wrong on that too?


I guess so. I propose an argument showing that the computationalist
hypothesis in cognitive sciences/philosophy of mind necessarily entails
a many many things view (not unlike most many worlders, everythingers,
etc.).
A priori we have too much worlds, we are hunting white rabbits ...



>[Bruno]
>> But yes I think math, at least elementary arithmetic is necessary for
>> the existence of "thinking", and I give an argument (UDA) showing that
>> comp implies the physical emerges from all possible computational
>> histories/dream (thus a form of thinking is prior to the physical).
>>
>[GORDON]So what is this comp/thinking/Dream made off is it real or
>NONreal

It is not made of. It is just number theory + angles, where angles are
defined by (godel) number of universal machine. It is number theory
including its multiple and various intensional variations. The intension
takes into account the relative point of view possible.
>From outside: just the sigma1 (UD accessible) sentences, but from the
infinite variety of inside point of view, like with skolem paradox in
set theory, it is most generaly, unboundly vast.


>and would it say that we should give up UFT of GR and QM?

Honestly I think that would be premature :) (to say the least).
My "technical result" is perhaps also an evidence that some part of QM
could be logically necessary (with comp), and some part of realities
could be necessarily empirical.



>> Bruno:This should not be confuse with the idea that there is a
>>universe and
>> that this universe is "equivalent" with a special computation.
>>
>[..]
>What I say is that the appearance of the physical law emerge from
>> interference between *all* computations. It would be quite consistent
>> with comp that the apparent universe is not reductible to any
>> computation.
>> That is comp could as well entails that the "universe" is not turing
>> emulable. We just currently don't know.
>>
>[GORDON]This would still imply that your comp is building a single
>classical Universe even if comp is using other comp Histories.


The comp ontology is *all computations*. Some "point of view refinement",
single out gigantesc
lattice of virtual lawfull relative "realities". Perhaps an ortholattice.
There could be appearance of classical universes but comp predict that
machines looking at their most probable neighborhood below their sharable
level of substitution of their shared computations will just discover
sort of multiverses. It is due to the computational indeterminacy.
We are fungible (Deutsch sense) with the huge realities consistent with
our state through our very vast ignorance, and others, perhaps ugly
dummy computations.

Comp entails many "realities" and can be used as vaccin against any
attempt to make a reductive (complete) theory of the possibilities
of the universal machine(s).

Questions:
Is it hard to imagine, at least one moment, that the laws of physics
could emerge themselves from invariant related to number theory and
its many multiple inside "point of views"? perfectly defined in an
axiomatic way (and having arithmetical models, through Godel Kleene Lob
...
arithmetisation of metamathematics).

Would not physical knowledge be better founded in case that knowledge
is shown part of the necessary belief of the typical sound universal
machine
relatively to its most probable (and deep) computations?

Bruno
Received on Wed Sep 05 2001 - 10:49:18 PDT