Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:51:25 +0200

Hi George,

I mainly agree with your remarks. Some ambiguity remains but I would
like to take some time to succeed making them clear. A priori
our approaches differs methodologically.
Concerning your UDA question, could tell me if you were referring
to the UDA presentation in 11 steps, or to the one in 15 steps
(that is to the conversation with Joel
or to the older presentation in one post I made for Russell)?
Ah you mention step 12, so it is the old one OK. But what do you mean by
a reduced universe?
Also, could you explain what you mean by "frame of reference" and this
without physicalist assumptions. Remember I try to deduce the whole of physics
(including geometry but not geography) from the "numbers' dreams".

I am rather busy until tuesday.

See You,


At 21:42 12/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
>Hi Bruno
>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> when you say that the first person is all there is I am not sure it
>> fits nicely with
>>the methodology I am following. I am not sure I understand why you don't
>>need the UD,
>>given that the UD is just a nice third person description of the comp
>>[That such a thing could exist is a highly non trivial consequence of the
>>closure of
>>the set of programmable functions for the diagonalization: the existence
>>of a universal
>>machine. (The Post Turing discovery)]. Cf the diagonalization posts.
>These are difficult issues... First it seems that the UD does not have to
>be a basic assumption from which the plenitude can be derived. I think you
>agree with that.
>Another issue is that if we begin with the basic assumption of first
>person perspective (from which the third person can be derived when first
>persons share the same frame of reference) then the plenitude should
>necessarily be regarded from the first person perspective.
>Is it correct to say that the plenitude is invariant when seen from the
>first person? In other words, are all the future potentialities present in
>the same amount as seen by any observer (no matter how little or how much
>his life is compromised by his circumstances)? This may be a basic
>invariance law in the MWI similar to the invariance of c in relativity.
>If this invariance is true, then your statement that the UD is a nice
>third person description for the plenitude is OK however it would only be
>a derivation from the plenitude invariance principle The UD would also be
>invariant to describe or generate the plenitude, for any observer.
>>Please recall me your feelings about the comp hyp in the cognitive
>>of mind, if you mind.
>This is a hard question to answer, but I'll give it a try. I am very
>committed to the first person "relativistic" or "relative" perspective. I
>believe that science has been gradually moving toward it from the days of
>Galileo and Copernicus. Einstein made the "I" relative in space and time.
>Everett made it relative in the quantum realm. I want to push that to its
>ultimate conclusion: that the "I" should be the basic axiom from which
>everything else derives. In "I", I include consciousness and its logical
>I reviewed your Universal Dovetailer Argument. at your internet site and I
>agree very much with it. However, I have some questions. Step 1-11 forces
>the reader to consider the first person perspective. Step 12 may have
>been taken too hastily. It presumes that the observer in steps 1-11 exists
>in a plenitude (for example a closed set of the set of programmable
>functions). This is not clear. In fact step 1-11 could have been taken in
>a reduced universe.
Received on Thu May 13 2004 - 09:52:37 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST