On 14 Nov 2008, at 19:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
> That was my point.  The SWE indicates that every microscopic event  
> that
> happens or doesn't happen stochastically splits the wave function.   
> But
> these events don't generally cause a split of Kory or other classical
> objects.

This would contradict the linearity of the tensor product together  
with the linearity of the evolution of the wave. I think.

> I don't see this.  For a non-materialist it seems that an un- 
> implemented
> idea or program is an incoherent concept.

An un- implemented idea or algorithm makes sense. For example a  
description of an algorithm A in natural language. Then an  
implementation of A in the universal language U consists in a formal  
string X such that if U is given X, UX, and run, the UX behaves like A  
was supposed to define, except for the unexpected bugs.  
"implementation" always means "implementation in some language", be it  
immaterial combinators or "material" hardware.
With comp, the point is that "material hardware" needs itself to be  
implemented in arithmetic, except here it is not so much a direct  
implementation (unless Kory's, and Jason's mathematical physicalsim is  
true) but more like an emergence from all computations (and thus on  
all possible implementations of all computations in the universal  
deployment). It is an open problem if the physics which emerge from  
all computations can be itself capture by one computations. I doubt  
it. If it exists, then it must have the shape of a sepical Universal  
Dovetailer, like a quantum Universal Dovetailer (why not, but for me  
this is very speculative).


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 

Reply via email to