Le 13-déc.-05, à 18:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

In this context I'm talking about your comp multiverse. Yes, our common sense experience sees history as one way. But this is the problem. Your requirement for LASE is that the accessibility relation is symmetrical.

I don't require LASE. (I recall for the other: LASE is the modal formula p -> BDp, its characteristic "multiverse" have a symmetrical accessibility relation)

It is just the main formula in a modal propositional quantum physics. LASE is an empirical discovery of the physicist (as re-expressed by modal logicians).
(I use LASE for: Little Abstract Schroedinger Equation).

This implies that it has to be just as consistent to go backwards in history as forwards.

You are going too much quickly here. Nobody said that we need to interpret the accessibility relation in a temporal way. LASE axiomatizes a relation of proximity among quantum states or quantum consistent histories, which can be seen in some block-multiverse.

From what you say above about the natural numbers, it seems that the comp assumption of natural numbers contradicts this.

Yes. And that explains why it takes me more than 20 years to resolve that apparent contradiction. But I do think like you that apparently there is a contradiction. The contradiction will disappear when we will take seriously the incompleteness phenomenon into account. Strangely enough perhaps.

I'd appreciate [your summary]. As part of it, I think I would need an explanation of what you mean by "physical universe".

Fair enough. Actually this depends of the context. I promise to say more asap; 'cause I got a new wave of working duties here alas :(

It seems to me that your belief in the process of verification, when you talk about verifying comp physics vs. quantum physics, is equivalent to a belief in a physical universe.

I gave an argument that if comp is correct then the *appearance* of *observables* must be explained from the (mathematical) structure of the natural border of our (us = the hopefully lobian machines) ignorance (a psychological or theological predicate). The argument is mainly the UDA + the movie-graph, and the machine ignorance is just the collection of its possible consistent extensions.
This is coherent with the RSSA measure-philosophy of many in this list.

Then I show that indeed any sound lobian machine who introspects herself deeply enough will find those laws of observability. And, so we can test comp by comparing those lobian observability laws with the observability laws infered by observation of the empirical reality.

Would we get a complete confirmation: this would entail a confirmation that the empirical laws emerge from the immaterial machine ignorance, not from a physical or substantial independent reality.

If you want I believe in empiry, not in a necessary primitively physical base for that empiry. Well, assuming comp, I believe in a base which is necessarily not physicalist. Like Chaitin has also observed (and also from incompleteness) even arithmetical reality can only be known, in great part, by observation, experiment with numbers.

Oops, must go now. Hope this helps a bit, but it will be clearer with the summary, I hope.



Reply via email to