Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2008, at 17:34, Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >> PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to >> explain that whatever the physical universe is, in the case I am >> Turing >> emulable, the physical universe is NOT turing emulable. >> >> >> Bruno, this was the item I was asking (or at least had meant to ask) >> you about several days ago. But it was phrased differently, >> something like "If I am the universe and the universe is not turning >> emulable then comp is false" Here you are saying the universe is not >> turning emulable, so if comp is true that implies "I != universe". I >> look forward to your explanation of why the universe is not Turing >> emulable. BTW: Does this apply to just the Everett Universe, or are >> there other conceivable universes which are emulable in addition to >> the observers they might contain? > > > Hmmm... Normally, once you grasp all the steps up to 8, or grasp > UDA(1...7) and accept provisorily #8 for the sake of the argument, you > should worry if the notion of universe still make sense at all. > > How can you be sure all the computation going through your current > state glues into a coherent physical reality? If you grasp 1...8 or > 1...7, you should understand it is up to you to justify why a universe > makes sense, or exists at all, and in case it makes sense, why should > it be computable. If it was shown to be computable, it would mean the > white rabbits have been evacuated already. > > If you agree that comp entails white rabbits, you already know that > the comp physics is non computable. We cannot evacuate any of those > white rabbits, they are there in "arithmetic". We can only hope (if we > want keep mechanism and the appearance of naturalism) that there is an > explanation why the white rabbits are *relatively* rare. > > And I am not assuming Everett in any way, nor even QM. On the > contrary, what I try to explain, is that, IF you take seriously the > Mechanist Hypothesis into account, THEN you can no more assume the > existence of a physical universe. If you still believe in lawful ways > to predict and anticipate our neighborhoods' behaviors, you have to > extract an explanation of those predictions from a theory of (gluing) > computations. IF QM is true (which I tend to believe), then you have > to justify QM entirely from computations or numbers. Including the > geometrical and topological background. > > The role of QM and especially through Everett's formulation of QM, is > that QM is a witness that the empirical observations already confirm > some of the most startling prediction of comp, like the indirect many > evidences for the many histories, and (with AUDA) the quantum logical > behavior of the certain propositions. > > The universal dovetailer does dovevtail on the quantum Universal > solutions of the SWE, and thanks to Feynman (and Everett, Deutsch) we > know how those Universal Quantum solutions do evacuate the *quantum > white rabbits*.
Unfortunately, I don't think we do know that, c.f. the paper by Dowker and Kent on Griffith's Consistent Histories interpretation. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9412/9412067v2.pdf Brent > But if we assume mechanism, we can no more postulate the SWE, we have > to extract it from all computations, meaning evacuate vaster sets of > white rabbits. We cannot, by 1-inedtermincay in front of the UD, > localize ourselves in any computational histories, we belong to all of > them, and nothing a priori indicates that the result is a computable > things. > > The moral is this. Mechanism provides a cute theory of mind, roughly > speaking it is computer science/mathematical logic. But then there is > a big price, we have to (re)explain all what we know and observe about > the body and the apparent universe. We can no more invoke the > existence of a lawful structure, we have to explain it from the theory > of mind/numbers. > > Do you are completely aware of the 1-3 distinction when doing the > seven step of the thought experiment/experience? > > Don't hesitate to ask again if this does not help, I feel I miss what > you don't understand. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---