ronaldheld wrote:
> As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
> well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
> mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
> something else?
>                                              Ronald
This is /the/ question. It always  seems to get sidestepped in 
discussions that fail to distinguish between (a) "/reality as some kind 
of natural computation/" and (b) "/reality represented by formal 
statements(laws of nature) of regularity, //apparent in an observer, 
//that may be artificially computed/ /by a Turing style machine/". The 
conflation of (a) and (b) is a constant in the discussions here.

(a) does not need an observer. It /constructs/ an observer.
(b) involves an observer and are  regularities constructed by the 
observer made by (a)

The (roughly 5) conflations (from my paper that refutes COMP) are:

Conflation #1:     Deploying an artificial scientist ? Bestowing 
scientific knowledge
Conflation #2:     COMP(utation) ? experience
Conflation #3:    A Scientist  ? Formal system
Conflation #4     Rules of a rule generator ? the generated rules 
(except once)
Conflation #5     AC Artificial Turing style abstract symbol 
manipulation ? NC The computation that is the natural world

Note that all 5 of these permeate the discussions here. I see it all the 
time. The main one is #5. When you realise how many combinations of 
these can misdirect a discussion, you realise how screwed up things are. 
The following statements summarise the effects:

(A) The fact that the natural world, to an observer, happens to have 
appearances predicted by a set of formal statements (Laws of 
Nature/Physics) does not entail that those statements are in any way 
involved in running/driving the universe. Eg. The assumption that the 
concept of a 'multiverse' is valid or relevant is another symptom of the 
conflation....the reason?  QM is a mathematical construct of type (b), 
/not/ an example of (a). The whole concept of a multiverse is a malady 
caused by this conflation.

(B) The operation of a Turing Machine ( = hardware-invariant//artificial 
abstract/ symbol manipulation) is /not  /what is going on in the natural 
world and, specifically, is /not/ what is happening in the brain (of a 
scientist). Assuming 'cognition is computation' is unjustified on any level.

I find the situation increasingly aggravating. It's like talking to cult 
members who's beliefs are predicated on a delusion, and who a re so deep 
inside it and so unable to see out of it that they are lost. Common 
sense has left the building. The appropriate scientific way out of this 
mess is to

(i) let (a) descriptions and (b) descriptions be, for the purposes, 
/separate scientific depictions of the natural world/ If they are not 
then at some point in the analysis they will become which case you have a /scientific/logical approach./
(ii) Drop /all/ assumptions that any discussion involving Turing 
machines as relevant to understanding the natural world. This means 
accepting,/ for the purposes of sorting this mess out/, (a) as being a 
form of computation fundamentally different to a Turing machine, where 
the symbols and the processor are literally the same thing. If you 
predicate your work on (i) then if COMP is true then at some point, if 
(a) and (b) become indistinguishable, /then/ COMP will be a-priori 
/predicted/ to be true.

I leave you to unpack your personalised version of the conflations. 
Traditional physics/math training will automatically infect the trainee 
with the affliction that conflates (a) and (b). The system of organised 
thought in which an observer is a-priori predicted with suggested 
sources of empirical evidence, is the system that we seek. (a) and (b) 
above represent that very system. We are currently locked into (b) and 
have all manner of weird assumptions operating in place of (a) which 
mean, in effect, that _the /last/ thing physicists want to explain is 
physicists_. Endlessly blathering on about multiverses and assuming COMP 
does /nothing/ to that end. I've had 5 years of listening to this 
COMP/Turing machine/Multiverse stuff. It's old/impotent/toothless/mute 
(predicts nothing) and sustained only by delusion . It operates as a 
cult(ure). I am the deprogrammer. :-)

PS. Brent .... I seem to have picked up a SHOUTING habit from a 
relatively brain dead AGI forum, where the folk are particularly deluded 
about what they are doing .... They are so lost in (ii) above and have 
so little clue about science, they need therapy! I'll try and calm 
myself down a bit. Maybe use /italics/ instead  :-)

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

Reply via email to