Hi Ronald,

Thanks for your crude questioning which gives opportunity for crude  
nuances on the fundamentals.

On 01 Dec 2008, at 19:54, ronaldheld wrote:

> This is going to be crude, but if I understand what Bruno( and others)
> are saying, there is no Physics or physical universe.

I would say that there is still physics, and some physical universe(s).
But assuming comp (and the correctness of the reasoning ...)  there  
should be no *primitive* physical universe.
The physical universe would be an emerging pattern which would arise  
eventually from addition and multiplication of integers, or equivalent.

> There is a (are)
> large computer program(s) running,

One "program" is enough. It is the Universal (Turing) machine, or  
better its "splotched version", that is a program which generates and  
executes all what a universal machine can do: this is the universal  
dovetailer. But it exists naturally in arithmetic(*).

> some segment of which exhibits
> consciousness? Does that crudely imply that everything I sense could
> be considered a dream or illusion from the majority viewpoint?

What you sense is what is real, but yes, "observable reality" is a  
shared dream, not among humans, but a vastly more general class of  
entities (the universal machines, mainly). It is a bit like in Matrix,  
or SIMULACRON III of Daniel Galouye, of like in the game "Second Life".
Such reality obeys (computational)  laws, is stable, is sharable, and  
we have good reason to bet it possesses a manifestly long and deep  
history (in sense which can been made precise in computer science). So  
it is hard to call it an illusion, but, ok, it can be viewed as a kind  
of shared dream by numbers.


------------- technical footnote to be seen by technically inclined  
reader -------------------------------------
(*) I think that not so much people here realize that the Universal  
Machine and the Universal Dovetailing are things very specific and non  
trivial. You can see an explicit Universal Dovetailer described in the  
language LISP by clicking on GEN et DU for a pdf here 
Or better, thanks to the crazily formidable work of H. Putnam, M.  
Davis, J. Robinson, Y, Matiyasevitch, and with the help of J. Jones:  
here is a purely equational presentation of a universal machine in the  

There are 31 unknowns ranging on the non negative integers (= 0  
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U,  
Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and there are two parameters:  Nu and X.

The solution of the following system of diophantine equations define,  
taking together, one view, very precise here, of the mathematical  
object that I am talking about. I think the Mandelbrot set is another,  
one, and of course a dovetailer in Lisp, another one.  Robinson  
Arithmetic gives yet another short one, expressible in first order  
logic with the symbol 0,S, +, *, and very few axioms, and it is the  
one needed to begin the interview of a lobian machine (which can  
"known" they are universal). Without allowing any other symbols than  
"=" and an implicit "E" quantifier, we can get a purely equational  
definition of such universal system: for those who remember the W_i,  
we have that X is in W_Nu (a universal relation) iff there exists  
numbers A, B, C, ... such that

Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y

ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th +  2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +  
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
          + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1

This is an explicit "theory of everything" acceptable for a  
computationalist. Assuming QM correct, Schroedinger equation (and the  
phenomenological quantum collapse) have to be derived from that, by  
those who believes in comp, or those who want to test comp.
Such equations determine a "consciousness flux", and matter emerges in  
a precise way from observational invariance.
No need, to understand this (at this stage). It can help to have  
images later to understand the difference between a computation, and a  
description of a computation, and how computations can emerge from  
number relation, and why this is non trivial. And things like that.

> On Dec 1, 12:58 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Kim,
>> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
>>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
>>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
>>> substratum of primitive physical materiality?
>>> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te
>>> serais infiniment reconnaisant
>> To explain that the world is (mostly) mathematical (and then psycho  
>> or
>> bio or theo logical), without mathematics, can be demanding.
>> What could help is the Mandelbrot Set. I will think about it.
>> Also, I don't want to bore the list too much, and there are already
>> many posts, so I will go extremely slowly.
>> You may be disappointed. In general mystic-open people like the
>> conclusion, but dislike the hypotheses and the methodology
>> (reasoning). The rationalists like the hypotheses and the reasoning,
>> but few appreciate the conclusion.
>> Are you really serious? I could send a post per month, taking
>> everything at zero.
>> Have you an intuition that consciousness is not material?
>> In case you were not serious, it is ok also. But I like to share, and
>> others could benefit. Who knows, you could be the one finding the
>> fatal flaw!
>> Best,
>> Brunohttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>> La vérité sort de la bouche des débutants.
> >


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