Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:08:36 -0500

Hi Bruno:

At 06:40 AM 12/7/2004, you wrote:
>Hi Hal,
>
>>In my questions about truth etc I was not really looking for a response
>>but was rather trying to demonstrate the need for additional information
>>in your theory.
>
>
>I don't have a theory. Just an argument showing that if we are machine
>then eventually physics is derivable from machine psychology/computer science.
>

I have almost no current opposition to this. It sounds to me that it is in
the All with my adder of a random input to the machine.


>>Your responses made my point I think. It is this issue I struggle
>>with. I seek a TOE that has no net information. Though its components
>>individually may have any amount of information the sum of all the
>>information in all the components is no information.
>>>
>>>>Why the down select re descriptions vs the All.
>>>
>>>I don't understand.
>>
>>My "theory" almost [However see below] includes yours as a sub
>>component. My only spin is that my theory necessarily has all dynamics
>>in it subject to external random input. Why down select to just your
>>theory and as a result add all that extra required info?
>>
>>>>How is the set of such sentences known to be consistent?
>>>
>>>It is never known to be consistent. We can just hope it is.
>>
>>That is what I thought.
>>
>>>(Smullyan makes a different case for arithmetical truth, but this would
>>>be in contradiction
>>>with the comp hyp).
>>
>>Please give me a URL or reference for his work.
>
>
>I deduce this from many readings of Smullyan. But I think Smullyan is just
>afraid that people takes Godel's second incompleteness theorem as an
>argument showing that Peano Arithmetic cannot been known to be consistent.
>And I agree with Smullyan on that point.

I believe we discussed this and you agreed that a complete arithmetic would
be inconsistent. I have not found the applicable posts.

>But with comp I cannot know my own consistency and I can only show (to
>myself) that IF I am consistent then Peano Arithmetic is consistent. Look
>at the "Forever Undecided" book (on the net or in the list archive).
>

There seems to be many ways to establish the necessary and sufficient
properties of my All and the above seems to be one of them.





>>>>To answer these questions it seems necessary to inject information into
>>>>your theory beyond what may already be there - the sentences - ...
>>>
>>>
>>>Right. This indeed follows from Goedel's incompleteness.
>>
>>Here you appear to me to be saying that your theory is indeed subject to
>>random external input.
>
>
>Not the theory, but the possible observers described by theory. This is
>just a consequence of comp: we "belongs' to an uncountable infinity of
>(infinite) computations. Cf our talk on the white rabbits. We don't need
>to inject randomness: a priori we have too much (first person) randomness.
>With comp it is the *lack* of randomness which is in need to be explained.
>

The randomness injected at each event can be quite small. Also it is
injected into each Something which itself is a multiverse so it is spread
over all the universes in that multiverse. Seldom would it parse so as to
inject large deltas into individual universes.


>>"Random" because we do not know if the set of sentences is consistent in
>>its current state and if incomplete it can be added to. How can it be
>>added to in a manner that is consistent with the existing state?
>
>
>This is not relevant. See Jesse's post.

But not wrong? See my previous post which is a clearer statement of what I
mean. The above is a contribuitor to the random evolution dynamic of the
Somethings. Two identical Somethings may not take the same next step.


>>So it would seem that your theory is indeed a sub component of my theory
>>so as I said why down select and be burdened with all that net info?
>
>
>But which theory? COMP ? COMP is mainly the hope that it is possible to
>survive some treatment in a hospital.
>

We have reached too many levels of nesting. I have been of on my own
excavations. Is not "all true arithmetical sentences" a part of comp?


>>>>...and where did all that info come from and why allow any in a base
>>>>level system for worlds?
>>>
>>>
>>>Concerning just natural numbers this is a mystery. With comp it is
>>>necessarily mysterious.
>>
>>Perhaps it is mysterious because it is unnecessary.
>
>
>But then you should explain why we believe in natural numbers. (You did
>give plenty evidence that you believe in natural numbers).

They would be in the All.

Hal
Received on Tue Dec 07 2004 - 20:12:06 PST