On 22 Jul 2009, at 14:12, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>>
>>    The most general form of existence is: All mathematical possible
>>    universes exist. Our universe is one of those mathematical  
>> possible
>>    existing universes.
>>
>>
>> This is non sense. Proof: see UDA. Or interrupt me when you have an
>> objection in the current explanation. I have explained this many
>> times, but the notion of universe or mathematical universe just makes
>> no sense. The notion of "our universe" is too far ambiguous for just
>> making even non sense.
>
> What do you think about the GoL-universes?  You can look at some of
> those at http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ .  If you have an initial
> condition and you have an unlimited board, then you can compute what
> will happen in the future in that universe.


What is an unlimited board for an ultrafinitist. (Ok, that was perhaps  
easy).




> These universes are
> universes with a two-dimensional space and a one-dimensional time.
> These GoL-universes are mathematial universes.  They have an initial
> condition and a mathematical rule that defines how that universe will
> look like in the next moment, and the next next moment, and so on.
>
> Does this make sense for you?


Those are not universes, but computational histories. Assuming comp  
there is a first person indeterminacy, which makes "physical  
appearances" or "physical universe" emerging from the infinity of such  
computational and universal computation. I suggest you read the UDA  
papers. I guess you were not yet on the list when I explained why  
"Wolfram" sort of computational physics, based on cellular automata,  
does not work.
And quantum mechanics confirms this by giving indirect but strong  
evidences on the existence of many statistically interfering  
computations.

The question about the existence of a mathematical structure  
describing the physical appearance is open, but we know already it is  
not a structure such that it makes sense to say "I belong to it", even  
if it makes sense to say "he" belongs to it. But "he", from his first  
person point of view belongs to an infinity of such history (or comp  
is false, which is the case normally for an ultrafinitist).

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to