Jason, I am not against a wiki for the list, but I think it could lead to some difficulties. I have already asked more than one time what are people's main assumptions, without much success (only Hal Finney answered). For my part I am just explaining results I got and published a long time ago (and it is just a sort miracle which made me defends those result as a thesis in France in 1998). I'm a bit annoyed for this sometimes. Concerning the acronyms I am using (comp, UD, UDA, Movie-graph, AUDA G, G*, ...) I refer to my papers available through my URL. I could make a list if you want, but if you put them in a wiki, I will insist, for a change, that correct references are joined.

## Advertising

My work has always consisted in two things: 1) an informal (but rigorous (rigor and formality have no relationships)) argument showing that the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science makes physics a branch of number theory/computer science. See UDA in my papers or in the archive. I have already explained this a couple of time. Physics appears to emerge from a (n-person) computations statistic. 2) a "formalisation" of the argument (called AUDA (Arithmetical UDA) in arithmetic. It adds nothing to the proof, except that it makes it constructive and it shows a precise way how to extract physics from comp, making comp Popper falsifiable. Here I don't succeed to explain this to the list because it needs more involvement in mathematics. Since my PhD, one open problem has been solved by Eric Vandenbussh (hand manuscript, I will put it on my web page), and I have made two extensions of my work. a) a possible relation between the S4GRZ1, Z1* and X1* (modal logic of the "material" hypostases) and a notion of arithmetical braiding (and thus possibly quantum computing, cf Kauffman; see my url). I have submit an abstract for a conference, but unfortunately I have discovered since an error and I am stuck in the proof. b) that the lobian interview (another name for AUDA) leads to a thorough purely arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus' "theology". It appears that "Plotinus' theology" can be seen as the best popular version of the self-observing lobian machine discourse, including physics (The "two Matters" of Enned 4 II. I have submit a paper recently. I am grateful for the kindness and patience of the people in this list. There are not many person interested in such subject, which of course is a difficult interdisciplinary subject, it helps me a lot. But to be honest, the only notion I could (but not yet have) borrowed from the list discussion is Bostrom Self-Sampling Assumption wording, and his notion of Observer Moment. Indeed (n-person-points of view of the true Sigma1 sentences can provide n-person points of view observer moment; see below) Schmidhuber left the list after denying any sense in the first and third person notion (he is not open on the mind-body problem). I don't remember Tegmark having participate in the list, except indirectly through a post of James Higgo quoting a personal conversation where Tegmark explains why he does not infer quantum immortality from quantum suicide. Tegmark is a bit fuzzy on what is an observer. Personally I believe that the mailing list would be formidably enhanced if we could use a simple pen for simple drawing. Just a pen. I mostly reason with simple images. And this is even more true about the quantum topological target which can be seen as an intermediate step between mind/matter and numbers. Bruno I will be busy newt week: here is an unfinished post I wrote. I send it in case it helps a bit. Le 03-févr.-07, à 10:05, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > Bruno Marchal writes: > > > What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp > > eludes the "material implementation" problem, given that we take all > > abstract possible relationship between those objects, and they are > all > > well defined as purely number theoretical relations. Note that this > is > > something I have tried to explain to Jacques Mallah sometimes ago, > but > > without much success. This does not make much sense in ASSA > approaches, > > but, like George Levy I think, I don't believe in absolute > probability > > of being me, or of living my current "observer moment". Such a > > probability can be given the value one (said George) but it is close > of > > saying that the universe is here, which tells us nothing, really. It > is > > like answering "who are you?" by I am me". > > I'm satisfied with this summary. The physical implementation problem > is not > a problem when considering abstract machines. So let us sum up (assuming comp once and for all at the start). (comp = "Yes Doctor" + Church Thesis (Arithmetical realism as I use it is implicit in Church thesis) 1) UDA+movie-graph entails that the physical science has to be a sub-branch of computer-science/number theory. Specifically: physics = invariant for a notion of (1-person-plural) self-observation. 1-person plural notions refer to multiplication of couple or entangled computational histories. OK? 2) This entails also that a self-observing universal machine, which exists by Church Thesis, has to discover physics "in her head". This provides a strategy: interview a "sufficiently platonist" universal machine about herself. 3) This gives a sequence of theorems, actually: Godel, Löb, Solovay, Boolos Goldlblatt, Visser ... (ref in my thesis). Such theorems (and others) can be summarized by saying that the universal machines discover what Plotinus discovered when looking inward, mainly all those "person points of view" (hypostasis). Physics is arithmetic as seen from one of those points of view; it is the one corresponding to a first person plural indeterminacy. This is made possible by the existence of the gap between truth and provability. The following, where p alone means "p (an arithmetical proposition like 1+1=2) is true": describes the definition of the main hypostases (Bp means the the machine proves p, Dp abbreviates ~B~p, where "~" denotes negation, and should be read "p is consistent for me" (or I cannot prove ~p): 1) p (unameable, Plotinus' ONE) 2) Bp (G, G*) (nameable, Plotinus' Intellect) 3) Bp & p (S4Grz = S4Grz* (unameable, Plotinus All soul) 4) Bp & Dp (Z, Z*; nameable, Plotinus' intelligible matter) 5) Bp & Dp & p (X, X*; unameable, Plotinus' sensible matter) Which makes a total of ... 8 hypostases! Why 8? Because, not only the gap between truth and provability does entail, from the machine point of view, the distinction between the logic obeyed by the 5 hypostases, but it doubles each hypostasis, making thus 10 hypostases (the truth and the provable points of view about them). But neither the ONE nor the Soul are duplicated by the G, G*-distinction: thus 8 hypostases. 4) then add the arithmetical version of comp (actually something weaker than comp): p -> Bp. Add it to G. The formula "p -> Bp" can be shown to characterize the Sigma1 true sentences (= DU accessible states). This changes all the hypostases. It is the acomp-hypostases (with acomp the arithmetical translation of comp): 1) p (quasi nameable now (could be a problem), Plotinus' ONE (in a more pythagorean version) 2) Bp (G1, G1*) (nameable, Plotinus' comp Intellect) 3) Bp & p (S4Grz 1 = S4Grz1* (unameable, Plotinus comp All soul) 4) Bp & Dp (Z1, Z1*; nameable, Plotinus' comp intelligible matter) 5) Bp & Dp & p (X1, X1*; unameable, Plotinus' comp sensible matter) My (modest) result: S4Grz1, Z1*, X1* gives rise to an arithmetical quantization. The quantization of p is given by BDp (with B and D interpreted in each of those three hypostases: it seems that the arithmetical bottom is completely symmetrical. 5) Major defect considering the reasonable target: quantum mechanics, or quantum computation (we have to find (by UDA) a reverse of Deutsch justification of bits from qubits). No arithmetical tensor, no natural coupling of true sigma_1 sentences, no braids (yet), nor Temperley Lieb algebra. But I would propose to I will send to the list some tutorial book references which can help. I propose we work out better the "physical" target. I will send a post on quantum computation, and on the Deutsch Friedman Kitaev thesis (the corresponding "Church thesis" for quantum computation). Meanwhile I would recommend the reading of Louis Kauffman's paper (ref in my URL) on knots and quantum information. This is just a suggestion, but, it could helps to explain or realise that the notion of computation and of quantum computation are far richer than people usually think. Knots provides combinatorial and discrete models of "physical universe" quite interesting per se, also. If all this is too technical, perhaps we could create a "technical-everything-list" for those ready to do more math. This is a suggestion, and it could provide a motivation for Jason's Wiki. I don't want insist too much on technical issue if people are not interested, and I remain interested in informal discussion. But, and this is a proof we do have make progress, More and more often I feel obliged to mention the technical AUDA to make clear informal talk. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---