On 11 Mar 2009, at 02:25, Günther Greindl wrote:

> Hi Bruno,
>>> The idea was that the numbers encode moments which don't have
>>> successors
>>> (the guy who transports), that's why there exist alien-OMs encoded  
>>> in
>>> numbers which destroy all the machines (if we assume that arithmetic
>>> is
>>> consistent).
>> Hmmm.... (Not to clear for me, I guess I miss something. I can build
>> to much scenario from you say here).
> Ok:
> if you make OM's correspond to numbers, then QI holds if for all OM's
> (encoded by some n) there are some (at least one) f(n) so that it is a
> continuation.

Only 3-OM correspond to (relative) number. I prefer to call them  
"states" or "worlds".
1-OM, (by step 7, correspond to infinity (aleph_zero)  of 3-OMs,  
themselves embedded in bigger infinities (2^aleph_zero) of  
computations going trough their corresponding states.
Between you-in-the-living room, and you-in-the-kitchen there is  
already a continuum of stories/computations.

> If the aliens destroy all the reconstitution machines (and the person
> beaming over does not find the beaming to have failed), this would  
> mean
> that there exists a number n (=OM) for which there is no f(n) which
> encodes a continuation.

The alien should be able to shut down the universal dovetailer. By  
step 8, they have to shut down elementary arithmetic. If they can do  
that from inside elementary arithmetic, it means elementary arithmetic  
is inconsistent. Robinson arithmetic would be inconsistent.

> So there can't both be a continuation OM (f(n) for n) _and_ aliens
> destroying _all_ the machines in the multiverse - which would say  
> there
> is _no_ such f(n), for some given n (the teleportation n).
> Maybe the confusion arises because we are talking on 2 levels: the
> platonic view (numbers) and the inside view (OMs). What is  
> determined in
> the one (platonic relations) decides what is possible in the OMs.

The 3-OM are determined in the little arithmetical Platonia. The 1-OM  
of the humans lives in the first person plenitude, which escapes  
provably (assuming the humans to be machine) the humans mathematics.
But the 1-OM of a simpler (than us) Lobian machine, like "Peano  
Arithmetic" is still tractable by a much richer Lobian machine like  
"Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory".

I think you (momentarily perhaps?) forget the full consequence of the  
seventh uda step. You, in the next instant, is literally determined by  
a continuum of computations+oracles executed by the UD. Thanks to  
empirical QM, we have good "objective" (sharable) reason we share most  
of those histories.

Best regards,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to