Charles Goodwin wrote:

>> From: Marchal
>> Some time ago Charles Goodwin wrote:
>> >(However I *still* don't understand why the laws of physics
>> operate inside a
>> >universe which is only a collection of disconnected
>> instants. Can anyone
>> >help?)
>> See   (imo)
>Unfortunately I don't have time to browse through another list! Is there any
>particular discussion / part of it that you'd like to point me to? Or can you
>give a condensed version of the argument?

It would be a pleasure to give you a condensed version, and perhaps I will
do it once I have more time. It certainly bears on some FOR chapters, in
particular, and TOEs in general.

In one post, on this list, Juergen Schmidhuber proposes, as a TOE,
the collection of all running programs. David Deutsch answered that such
a TOE explains too much and should be trivial.

I have published (in the eighties) a similar proposal, not really as a 
but as a way to formulate the mind body problem in the computationalist
frame (i.e. with the hypothesis that we are machines or comp). 
(See my 1988, 1991 paper).

So I both agree and disagree with Deutsch. As a TOE the running of the
universal program is trivial, but as a formulation of the mind body 
problem it is highly non trivial.

In my (PhD) thesis I do precisely two things:
1) A "philosophical" yet rigorous argument showing the necessity that comp
   entails a reversal "matter/mind" (or physics/"machine's psychology")
2) A translation in pure arithmetic of that argument (under the form
   of an "interview" of an arbitrary sound universal machine. This leads
   to purely arithmetical interpretations of quantum-like logics (showing
   in particular some relationship between qualia and quanta).
   That (technical) part + a recent paper by Rawling and Selesnick in the
   Journal of ACM 2000 even gives me a way to describe quantum circuit in
   the  ... "mind border of the universal machine".

Thanks to the infinite patience of some everything-list correspondents
I have been able to give electronical explanation on both 1 and 2 in
english on the net.

Perhaps the simplest way for the "1)" is my recent discussion with Joel
Dobrzelewski, where UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument. The universal
dovetailer (UD) is the program generating and running all program. 

To begin with, a gentle explanation in english of my UD has been given 
by Hal Finney:

Then, a step by step (Socratic) presentation of the "philosophical" yet
rigorous UDA argument is given in the following discussion with Joel
Dobrzelewski (+ a precision asked by George Levy):

   UDA step 1
   UDA step 2-6
   UDA step 7 8
   UDA step 9 10
 UDA last question
   Joel 1-2-3
   Re: UDA...
Joel's nagging question

Bruno Marchal

Reply via email to