>From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Jacques Mallah wrote:
> >    We discussed it; as I said then, it's wrong.
>You call it the crackpot proof :-)  ("hurluberlu" in french)

    Pourquoi "hurluberlu"?  Expliquez-moi ce mot (en anglais), s'il vous 
plait.  (Je ne parle pas francais!)

> >    Sorry to break it to you, but you do.  A physical universe is not the 
>only (hypothetically real) mathematical structure that should implement 
>computations.  Obviously, you believe that a universal dovetailer (a single 
>computation) implements all the computations it dovetails.
>I don't believe that. Only the concrete (implemented) DU does that,
>and then enter the "crackpot" proof, ... , or OCCAM. (see the UDA post):
>there is no need for a concrete running of the DU. The word "concrete"
>appears in the mouth of machine (if I can say) relatively to
>stable (without wabbits!) stories. Unless you postulate the existence
>of a concrete world. I don't. "The existence of a concrete universe" is
>what need an explanation (for me). And with comp I got only appearances
>of "The existence of a concrete universe".
>*Concrete* is just *abstract* made familiar (and seen from inside).

    I really don't know what you mean by "concrete".  If you believe there's 
a UD, you believe there's a UD.  If not, stop sounding like you do and tell 
us in plain "anglais" what you mean.  I am sure the distinction is totally 
irrelevant.  Math is math.
    In any case, you either believe that it implements the computations, or 
you believe that it doesn't.  If the latter, then it certainly can't be a 
candidate for any kind of TOE.

>At least you don't believe (unless you change your mind) in the
>1-person/3-person distinction, so I don't need even to try
>explaining my way, do I?

    The "third person view" is fully capable of describing the entire 
situation.  (Notice that _I_ never use the term "3rd person view"; a better 
term would be "actual situation".)
    Anything an observer-moment sees is just a property of his 
observer-moment.  The measure distribution predicts everything (to the 
extent possible); one can look at conditional effective probabilities by 
holding some property of an observation fixed.  (Such as "the observer 
thinks his name is Jack and that the time is 10:00 pm".)  Simple.  Forget 
your "first person probabilities" crap, it doesn't mean anything.
    By the way, "computational continuation" is also meaningless undefined 
crap.  A computation either halts or doesn't; in either case the only 
continuation is that it either halts or doesn't.
    It seems to me that I need to repeat myself a lot here.
    Hey, what's the french word for "crap"?  I bet it would sound much more 
elegant ... unless the french just stole it.

                         - - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
         Physicist  /  Many Worlder  /  Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
         My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Reply via email to