Bruno and George,
 
amazing how accurately you describe in math words what I
wrote in 1998 and put on the WEB in 1999, based on the 1997 paper (Pre-Geometric origins) of Rainer Zimmermann - the NARRATIVE (no math) of the (no Plato-based)Plenitude - Bigbangs unlimited, including ours. No comp, no simulation, just a plain logical 'story' how bigbangs have got to emerge.
I work on comp-leting (!) it ever since. In plain langauge - give it some more 2-300 years.
 
My purpose was to "keep the Big bang-like beginning" for the convenience (after I fought against the cosmologists' follies) and describe a logical necessity for it to occur with a subsequent history it underwent in our universe (amongst innumerable others) to re-dissipate into the Plenitude.
 
They are not any similar to ours, I can't put Tegmar's ideas
into them. All occur and dissipate aspatialy-atemporally.
 
Related stuff: on the Karl Jaspers Forum (networks 2003):
http://www.douglas.qc.ca/fdg/kjf/62-TAMIK.htm - while on
the (apache) "Index of jamikes" - my website - the entries
following:   http//pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/ ... 
...Plenitude00.html, ......bigbang.html,  ...evolJuly00.html
show my approach in its forming (not even by far any similar to yours).
Just FYI - I claim no part in the UD-related thoughts.<G>
Cheers
 
John Mikes
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

> At 15:51 10/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
>
>
> BM: But you agree there is no plenitude without an UD.
> >GL: No I don't agree. I don't agree that the UD is the origin of all things.
>
>
> But to say that there is no plenitude without an UD does not mean that the UD
> is the origin of all things.
>
>
>
>
> >This is typical classical thinking.
>
>
> But I am a classical (boolean) thinker. (and actually it was a
> typical confusion between A->B and B->A, don't worry it happens
> all the time).
>
>
> >To paraphrase
> >
> >"In the beginning there was the UD (eg. x=x+1).
>
>
>
> (Technical details: the UD is a little more than x = x+1, but OK)
>
>
>
> >And the UD generated the Plenitude (eg. 0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
>
>
> Be careful. I thought we agreed that the Plenitude is a first person notion.
> the O, 1, 2, 3, .... could not even be used to describe a notion of
> 3-plenitude.
> The 3-plenitude is best described by the whole arithmetical truth, which
> has been
> proved to be not describable by any finite theory. It is not completely
> unifiable.
>
>
>
>
> >. Out of the plenitude came out different worlds.
>
> But you *do* have understand the UDA argument (I have links!), and now you
> begin to talk
> like Schmidhuber. With the comp hyp only one physical world exists, and it
> is an emerging
> (from the 1-point of view) appearance. It emerges from all the comp histories.
> For exemple, although newtonian worlds are generated by the UD, no
> consciousness
> can ever stabilize on it because it is (or should be) of measure zero.
>
>
>
> >Out of some of these worlds conscious creatures emerged. We are some of
> >these creatures."
>
>
>
> And so this sentence has just no meaning with (classical) comp.
>
>
>
>
> >This is 3rd person thinking. It leads to the mind-body problem.
> >
> >I resolve the mind-body problem at the outset by using the observer as a
> >starting point.  The "I" is both an observable fact and an axiom. "I" can
> >observe that "I" am capable of logical thinking and that my thoughts are
> >consistent. ( I will leave to you the detail regarding what kind of logic
> >applies) My logical ability leads me to the principle of sufficient reason
> >One way to phrase this principle is "If there is no reason for something
> >not to be then it must be. Since I am in a particular state and there is
> >no reason for me not to be in any other state, then I must also be in
> >those states. This leads me to think that there are other observers beside
> >myself, in fact, all possible observers.
> >
> >I can also apply this same principle to the world that I observe. If the
> >world is in a particular state, and there are no reasons for this world to
> >be in this particular state, then in must be in all possible states. This
> >leads me to the plenitude. Thus the plenitude includes all possible worlds.
> >
> >The indistinguishability of which observer I am and (conjugately?) which
> >world I occupy leads to first person indeterminacy.
>
>
> I agree with all this. my point is that this is indeed the correct (with comp)
> discourse of the first person. I can't say more without technics.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>If not recall me what you mean by
> >>the plenitude.
> >>Remember also that from a machine's point
> >>of view (1 or 3 whatever) the plenitude
> >>is given by the the UD, or more exactly its
> >>complete execution (UD*).
> >I suppose "I" am the UD. Or maybe "I*" am the UD??? I don't know if this
> >makes sense.
>
>
> I don't think so.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>It may be possible that the need to invoke a UD originates from
> >>>classical 3rd person (objective or absolute) thinking in which several
> >>>separate physical worlds are simulated.
>
>
>
> I would be prudent before linking "objective" with "absolute". I could
> argue that
> only the subjective is absolute (for example it is hard to relativize
> actual pain ...).
> Also,  I insist (I know you did got that probably subtle point), but with comp
> the adjective "physical" cannot be applied to anything capable of being
> emulated (because the physical is a sum on all possible emulations at once,
> and that cannot be emulated).
>
>
>
>
> >As I said I think the UD is a remnant of 3rd person thinking.
>
>
> I don' t understand why you dislike so much 3-person thinking (although I
> appreciate very much your respect for the 1-person).
> 3-person thinking is called usually "science". It is communicable
> falsifiable (mainly) propositions and proofs. Like a proof that 17 is a
> prime number.
>
>
>
>
>
> >The comp hypothesis may be better off without a UD simply because it is
> >possible to derive the plenitude without a UD. And should you refuse to
> >accept the observer as a starting point,  you could assume the plenitude
> >as a starting pont axiom. It is "simpler" to assume the plenitude as an
> >axiom than an arbitrary UD. At least there is nothing arbitrary about the
> >plenitude.
>
>
>
> But the UD is just a machine-independent (and thus non arbitrary)
> description of the
> comp plenitude as it can be talked about in a 3-person way by (consistent)
> machines.
> I keep insisting that the UD is not given as an possible explanation, but it is
> a *necessary problem* (once we postulate comp). I did prove that that
> necessary problem
> is equivalent to the extraction of the physical laws from number
> theory/arithmetic.
>
>
>
> >It may be that using the observer as starting points will force White
> >Rabbits to be filtered out of the observable world
>
>
> And again I totally agree. It *is* what is proved in my thesis. I have done
> two things:
> 1) I have given a proof that if we are machine then physics must be
> redefined as a
> science which isolates and exploits a (first person plural) measure on the
> set of all
> computational histories. The proof is rigorous, I would say definitive
> (unless some systematic
> error of course), although provably unformalizable (so that only 1 person
> can grasp it).
> 2) I provide a mathematical confirmation of comp by showing that (thanks to
> Godel,
> Lob, Solovay ...) we can literally interview a universal machine, acting
> like a scientist
> ---by which I mean we will have only a third person discourse with her. BUT
> we can
> interview her about the possible 1-person discourse. That is a "tour de
> force" in the sense
> that the notion of first person is absolutely not formalizable (and so we
> cannot
> define it in any third person way). But by using in a special way ideas
> from Plato's Theaetetus + Aristotle-Kripke modal logic + Godel's incompleteness
> discovery make the "tour de force" easily tractable.
> Here I can only be technical or poetical, and because being technical seems
> yet premature I will sum up by saying that with comp, the plenitude is just the
> incredibly big "set" of universal machine's ignorance, and physics is the
> common
> sharable border of that ignorance, and it has been confirmed because that
> sharable border has been shown to obey to quantum laws.
> I get recently new result: one confirm that with comp the first person can
> hardly know
> or even just believe in comp; the other (related to an error in my thesis I
> talked
> about in some previous post) is the apparition of a "new" quantum logic (I did
> not command it!) and even (I must verify) an infinity of quantum logics between
> the singular first person and the totally sharable classical discourses.
> This could go along with your old theory that there could be a continuum of
> person-point-of-view between the 1 and 3 person, and that would confirms
> that you
> are rather gifted as an "introspecter" (do you remember? I thought you were
> silly).
> But then it looks you don't like any more the 3-person discourse, why?
>
> Bruno
>
> PS Apology for having written so many time "Thaetetus", when the correct
> spelling
> is Theaetetus. (Got my "Myles Burnyeat" book on the "Theaetetus of Plato",
> a book
> I recommend for those who are interested in the "tour de force").
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Reply via email to