--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Stathis, Hi Quentin, Hi All,
> Le 14-juil.-06, � 01:48, Stathis Papaioannou a
> :
> > Quentin,
> >  �
> >  I think I can follow Bruno's UDA up to the point
> of the point where 
> > he shows that comp => no material world exists.
> You seem to understand 
> > it and you aren't Bruno (at least, I assume you're
> not Bruno: none of 
> > us on this list can really be sure of these
> things, can we? ;). Would 
> > you be kind enough to explain it to me?
> >  �
> >  Stathis
> >
> >
> Stathis,
> In what sense is this message an offlist post? Is it
> just an "oops" 
> phenomenon?
> Now I am curious: you say you understand UDA up to
> "comp => no material 
> world exists". Well that's a reasonable part of it.
> Does it means that 
> you don't see the last thing, i.e. that physics
> should emerge from some 
> 1-measure on the computational histories?
> I still do not know if you have done the thought
> experiment where we 
> execute a "concrete" UD in our apparent observable
> history/universe.
> Quentin,
> Did you succeed in explaining that to Stathis? Do
> you see it? Clearly, 
> vaguely?
> All,
> And the eighth step? Do we need to run the UD?
> For some, arithmetical realism is enough for
> justifying that we don't 
> have to run the UD.
> But I don't think so. This would be (trivially,
> obviously) true if we 
> were assuming at the start AR+, the pythagorean
> version of comp, which 
> ontologically accept arithmetical truth *and no
> more*. But I don't do 
> that, even if I think comp leads to it. To prove it,
> you still need
> -either a form of Occam Razor together with an
> evaluation of the 
> resemblance of the already extracted qualitative
> feature of the comp 
> physics(*), with the empirical physics;
> -or a direct argument showing that comp prevent
> consciousness to 
> supervene on "physical activity", i.e. an argument
> la "movie-graph" 
> or Maudlin Olympia.
> Bruno
> (*)(erased)


1. And if someones (1-?)personal "taste" does not
accept the (and only) math ways?
Can I say: I am right and the rest of the world is

2.You mention Occam, I was in love with him for many
years. Now: I consider his razor-cut "essence" as a
simulacron, a limited model of the content I just want
to consider (talk abouit), keaving out any further
ramifications as 'only obscuring the clear view'. 
Do we want to "see clearly" the part we want to see
clearly? Are "all possible cases" the selection we
want (or can) include?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to