Hi Gordon,

You wrote:

>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>  At 18:15 +0100 4/06/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>  >so what conteext do these natural number come from?
>>
>>  OK. That's the mystery. But I challenge you to propose something
>>  simpler, which does not presuppose implicitly numbers.
>>
>>  Bruno
>
>In order for me too know what is beyond a wall first I must know what
>the wall is and if there can be a beyond then I can guess but never
>really know.
>Plato just assumed Godlike status and thought that he knew without human
>or Wall that these other abstraction existed without Context.
>
>I make no claim except I know that there are limtes to knowledge.
>
>And like a Conversation Reality is hard to define the outline when you
>are in the middle of it?
>
>I would say that a single theory cantnot explain all becuase even that
>theory is woven into other knowledge and an abstraction of a greater
>thing.We humans are limited and so are our structures we have a long way
>to go yet?
>
>I turn your question round how as a human being can you say that you
>have direct
>knowledge to Numbers without Physicsl context, in other words how does a
>Baby find this. Now this dont mean Plato or you are wrong but it harder
>to prove your right since you are in the middle of Reality like our
>Hologuy,He too cant know!
>
>
>Also if this is right surly it mean that your theory and means linked
>with comp are in fact formed from within Reality hence cant really
>explain the Outline of Reality or the existence of Numbers without
>context for the idea of Numbers themselves come from within Reality so
>what is truth???
>
>Even my idea are abstraction related to yours and yours too mine so we
>are both in this Strange loop sorry?


I agree with all you say except I have shown that with the comp hyp
physics *cannot* be the fundamental theory of reality. Physics emerges
from a deeper theory which is just the psychology of machine. Stable
laws emerge from sheaf of coherent computationnal histories. The
block reality is just the (non axiomatisable) set of arithmetical truth.
"Physical" appears to be an indexical invariant, like "here", "now",
"modern", "artificial", etc.

I don't think I could have know the notion of number without physical
context, but this does not logically imply that numbers *arise* from the
physical context.

Concerning the hologuy or the dreamer he cannot know the real but
can discover some relative falsities. In its mathematical
neigborhoods, where (by definition)
he survives, the probability that most hologuys discover in the long run
the immateriality of any of the UM which locally supporte it/them is
near 1. So progress is always possible (and even unavoidable).

Roughly speaking physical is the mathematical as seen from inside
by mathematical machine.
Everett has embedded the physicist in the physical world, and has
shown that this makes the probability rule a theorem instead as of a
quasi-inconsistent axiom. I show that if you embed the mathematician
in the mathematical reality then the deterministic equation must also
become a theorem.

Math and arithmetic is not a collection of conventions, it kicks back
so much enough that it become reasonable (and obligatory with the comp
hyp) to attempt to reduce physics to machine psychology or computer
science.

Of course we will never be sure of any theory (but that is not the
point, is it?).
Nor can we solve all questions. For exemple we cannot solve the question
of the origin of natural numbers. What is nice is that the comp hyp
*can* explain why no (sound) machine could explain that origin.

Remember also that what I say is in principle testable. Just compare the
physics derived from the machine psychology with the physics
derived from observation.

I think we share much of the same *philosophy*. We just choose different
theories. Perhaps because we don't ask the same question. I am interested
in the mind-body problem and in the problem of the origin of the physical laws.

I just showed if we are digitalisable entity then the
empirical realities admit necessarily a non empirical explanation.

I consider the number reality as a good candidate for the non 
empirical reality first because, by humility, I believe that the 
proposition
"17 is prime" is independent of the contingent and empirical ways "I" got
it; and second, because for logical reason it can be shown that without
that number reality it would be hard to just talk consistently about it.

I insist you should read carefully the Universal Dovetailer Argument
(uda, cf URL below) because I am not sure you have seen *how should* the
  physical laws emerge from some sum on all computations (or Sigma_1
relations between numbers), if those laws emerge at all. Future will
decide!


Best regards and many thanks for your kind interest,

Bruno

Reply via email to