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

## Advertising

> 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. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---