Title: Re: [quant-ph-0212078] What is the speed of quantum in
Hi Stephen,

SPK:

>What I would very much like to understand is why your modelizations only
>seem to include the natural numbers.

BM:
Because I use the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science.
It means that relatively to my most probable neighborhood I am determined
by a number: my program or godel number if you want. It is the number which
make it possible to survive with a digital brain/body, or to survive a
reconstitution.



SPK:
>Why do you not seem to allow for the
>entire Cantorian hierarchy of ordinals and cardinals?

I allow them. Since Godel we know that even to study properties of
natural numbers we need the whole Cantor Paradise.
(Like complex number are indispensable in pure number theory).
Note that in set theory cardinality notion are relative. A set can be
uncountable as seen in a model, and countable as seen in another model.

SPK:
>This, of course, neglects the fundamental problem that some people have,
>such as myself, with the use of Platonia to "explain away" quantities
>such as mass, charge and angular momentum.

BM:
I do not explain them away. I explain them and similar terms.
It is the *whole* purpose of the UDA and AUDA.


SPK:
>What I would like to know, in addition to the above
>question, is how do you answer Stephen Hawking's (?) question: "What breaths
>fire into the equations"? or my version: How are the solutions to all
>possible mathematical equations computed?

BM:
I don't need the hypothesis of "breath". I guess you believe in the need
of a material-causal universe computing the solutions of the mathematical
equations. But, once you accept a minimal amount of arithmetical realism,
all the relevant computations exist arithmetically. Look at Maudlin 1989
paper to understand that this is enough, and, even, cannot be ameliorated,
once you assume the comp. hyp.

Regards,

Bruno

Reply via email to