Hi Jason, Le 03-déc.-08, à 17:20, Jason Resch a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >>> and that by virtue of this imposed order, defines relations between >>> particles. Computation depends on relations, be it electrons in >>> silicon, Chinese with radios or a system of beer cans and ping-pong >>> balls; >> >> >> Here you are talking about instantiations of computations relatively >> to our most probable computations, which have a physical "look". But >> strictly speaking computations are only relation between numbers. >> > > Bruno, > > Thanks for your reply, I am curious what exactly you mean by the most > probable computations going through our state if these computations > cannot be part of a larger (shared universe) computation. Hmmm... It means you have still a little problem with step seven. I wish we share a computable environment, but we cannot decide this at will. I agree we have empirical evidence that here is such (partially) computable environment, and I am willing to say I trust nature for this. Yet, the fact is that to predict my next first person experience I have to take into account ALL computations which exist in the arithmetical "platonia" or in the universal dovetailing. > Where does the data provided to the senses come from if not from a > computation which also includes that of the environment as well? You don't know that. The data and their statistics come from all computational histories going through my state. The game is to take completely seriously the comp hyp, and if it contradicts facts, we will abandon it. But that day has not yet come .... Until then we have to derive the partial computability of our observable enviroment from a statistic on all computations made by the UD. > Also, why does the computation have to be between numbers specifically, They don't. Sometimes I use the combinators. They have to be finite objects, and this comes from the *digital* aspect of the comp. hyp. > could a program in the deployment that calculates the evolution of a > universe This is something you have to define. If you do it I bet you will find a program equivalent to a universal dovetailer, a bit like Everett universal quantum wave. > perform the necessary computations to generate an observer? Sure. The problem is that there will be an infinity of program generating the same observer, in the same state, and the observer cannot know in which computations it belongs. Never? Measurement particularizes, but never get singular. > If they can, then it stands other mathematical objects besides pure > turing machines and besides the UD could implement computations > capable of generating observers. Not really. Those objects are internam construction made by programs relatively to trheir most probable history. > I noticed in a previous post of yours you mentioned 'Kleene > predicates' as a way of deriving computations from true statements, do > you know of any good sources where I could learn more about Kleene > predicates? A very good introduction is the book by N.J. Cutland. See the reference in my thesis. There are other books. I will think to make a list with some comments. Actually I really love Kleene's original "Introduction to Metamathematics", but the notations used are a bit old fashioned. Hope I am not too short. I am a bit busy today, Best, 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
