Le 18-oct.-06, à 16:27, 1Z a écrit :

>> Bruno: In computer science, a
>> fixed universal machine plays the role of a coordinate system in
>> geometry. That's all. With Church Thesis, we don't even have to name
>> the particular universal machine, it could be a universal cellular
>> automaton (like the game of life), or Python, Robinson Aritmetic,
>> Matiyasevich Diophantine universal polynomial, Java, ... rational
>> complex unitary matrices, universal recursive group or ring, billiard
>> ball, whatever.
> Peter: Ye-e-es. But if all this is taking place in Platonia, the
> only thing it *can* be is a number. But *that* number can't
> be associated with a computaiton by *another* machine,
> or you get infinite regress.

I don't think so. Remember that I assume arithmetical realism. This 
means that I take the arithmetical truth as being true independently of 
me. This means not only that the propositions saying that such numbers 
exists or not are true independently of me, but also that propositions 
asserting that such or such relations between numbers exist are true 
independently of me (you, ...).

Now, and I agree this is perhaps more subtle, propositions like "x is a 
computational states reachable by y in the context z", or "x is 
reachable by a DU" can be translated in term of such relations between 
numbers, under the form of pure arithmetical sentences. And this is 
enough for both the UDA reasoning to proceed, and the arithmetical 
lobian interview to be completed.

So the infinite regress is avoided by the facts that purely 
arithmetical truth (and even just provability) are already turing 
universal. The universal computational "behavior" of the numbers is 
naturally encoded through the additive and multiplicative relations 
among numbers. Godel did show this through its arithmetization" of 
metamathematics, and Matiyasevich has succeeded in showing that such 
universal computational relation can even be encoded through a 
polynomial equation. That is more than enough to justify, assuming 
comp, why numbers will "feel" like if subjective time, matter, taxes 
and death "exists", from their own point of view. To solve the riddle 
of "matter and consciousness" the only (big) problem which remains 
consists in showing how the laws of physics will emerge in the 
empirically correct stable relative proportions. But that was the point 
I want to show, except that I have actually already derive a bit of 
comp physics to say that the quantum weirdness confirms the comp hyp 
until now. The advantage of getting the comp-physics through such an 
arithmetical interview is that it gives the quanta/qualia nuances, like 
it gives all n-person point of views, etc.



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