On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:48, Brian Tenneson wrote:

> Thanks.
> How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence  
> hypothesis fit or not fit into this?

It fits well, I mean better than anythings else (except perhaps  
Wheeler), but yet ... not so well. What is common, is the open- 
mindness toward mathematicalism.

First "mathematical existence" is a very encompassing notion, which  
usually leads to contradiction when made precise.
Secondly, the UD reasoning should make clear that "physical  
existence"  is not just the view from inside some mathematical  
structure. The first person indeterminacy delocalize the observers  
(universal mathematical machines) in infinities of mathematical  
structures. So the physical existence is more a form of modal notion,  
involving many mathematical beings, and capable to be explained, from  
self-reference and a (tiny) part of arithmetic. Physics emerges from  
how numbers are "seeing" each other, taking into account that numbers  
cannot know which number there are. If you know the work of Tegmark,  
you will easily see the difference by studying the UD proof. Then the  
Arithmetical version of the UDA, which I call AUDA, shows exactly how  
physical interactions and physical sensation arise in the mind or  
discourse of the self-observing universal (arithmetical) machine.
Thirdly, well, I already mentioned the emergence of the physical  
sensation. What is nice, but relies on some mathematical logic, is  
that the way UDA+AUDA proceeds, we get a theory of both quanta and  
qualia, together with an explanation of the gap between third person  
proof and first person knowledge, an explanation of the role of  
consciousness (relative self-speeding up), etc.

I guess opportunities to make all this clearer will happen. If you  
read the papers, you can ask any questions, of course. The key idea is  
the first person indeterminacy. It is the basic building concept which  
drives the whole reasoning.

One day I will write some book, or large paper, but I need more  
feedback. Up to now, I heard about critics, but I have never succeeded  
to be confronted to them. Most misunderstanding comes from the  
ignorance of logic and of the math I am using, but also by the usual  
disinterest of many scientist in the fundamental of "philosophy of  
mind". The subject is of course rather difficult, and intrinsically  
transdisciplinary. yet, only the very basic notions of the disciplines  
crossed need to be known, but there is a huge gap between cognitive  
science/philosophy of mind, physics, and mathematical logic which  
needs to be filled. The work has been rejected in Brussels, by people  
having none of those expertise, and has been defended as a PhD thesis  
in France without any trouble, despite some of the members of the jury  
were a bit unease by the admittedly rather big change in perspective  
it leads too. Which I can understand, but I must admit that I have  
underestimated the attachment of modern scientists to Aristotle  
theology. This simply does not work, once we take the Comp. Hyp.  
seriously enough, meaning: without eliminating the person or its  
conscious sensations and perceptions.



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

Reply via email to