Hi Ronald,

On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:07, Ronald Held wrote:

>
> I joined this list due to Tegmark's site, and got help on my  
> multiverse talk.

Nice.

>
> I have (tried) to read other threads and do not understand most of
> them. Some of which may be due to shared implicit knowledge.


Which threads? I think it is normal to get lost. You are a bit unlucky  
to arrive now, I have just finished the explanation of an argument  
(the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that  
I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there is  
some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have  
emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof, the  
Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume  
mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or  
better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively: machine's  
computer science. You can find many papers on that subject in my url,  
and feel free to ask any question. This anticipated and refuted  
somehow Tegmark and Schmidhuber's approach of some fundamental question.
If you are interested I can say more. I have no idea of your  
background. My work is not so well known, apparently (probably because  
I have published in french a long time ago). You can see it as a  
correction of Penrose's Godelian argument, or as a generalisation of  
Everett's explanation of the appearance, in the memory of the average  
observers, of the wave collapse in QM. Indeed, if Everett is correct,  
what I argue for can be used to explain that we have to derive the  
wave itself from pure arithmetic + the mechanist hypothesis in  
cognitive science. But there are many different departure possible.  
perhaps you have your own. You can also may be consult Russell  
Standish's book on Nothing as an introduction to the subject (it is  
free online).




> Some of
> which seems like philosophy and not proofs or calculations I can
> understand.not even certain what to ask first, so I will wait to see
> what explanations I may received and ask additional questions.



Fee free to ask any question. You can perhaps catch up by reading the  
recent posts MGA 1, MGA 2 and MGA 3. The argument doesn't need the  
understanding of the whole UDA. And your opinion is welcome now that  
the argument is still fresh in the mind of the list readers.

It seems also that some logicians, or people not adverse to logic have  
join the list, and if I am asked to explain AUDA, the Arithmetical  
version of UDA, I could accept or give references. AUDA is an abstract  
form of the UDA translated in arithmetic. It is not needed to add  
rigor to the UDA, but only to show a precise path for making the  
reversal physics/computer-science more constructive, and actually give  
a precise way for *how* to derive physics from computer science.

Other people defends or introduce related ideas, and all turn around  
the "everything exists" idea, or some other plenitude assumptions.

Bruno Marchal
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 [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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to