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
>understand.
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
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2855.html)
Bruno
