On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
> Bruno wants to substitue matetr with Platonia as the substrate.
Not at all. This definitely convinces me that you have not even try to
begin to read the proof.
Ontically you can say there is a bottom. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, .... (that is
0 and the successor axioms).
Then it is structured by addition and multiplication, only.
This is enough for defining internal observer (as relative universal
machine), and their physical reality. This one appears, as a theorem,
not having any bottom (from the machine view, what happens below its
substitution level depends on the whole set of computations going
through her state).
There is just no need, nor any possible use of any substrate. You can
read the mathematical part of work without leaving your formalist
cocoon. You need the "yes doctor" only for linking your experiences
with the theory. But you can just study the physics of the universal
machines, if you want not commit yourself to CTM.
Platonia, is just the so-called standard model of arithmetic. It is
(N, +, x). A highly undecidable structure, but not more than what we
play with when doing trigonometry at school. Things like functional
analysis are far more 'big'.
It has virtually nothing to do with Plato, unlike AUDA which relies on
Theaetetus definitions of knowledge.
There is no substrate at all. Physics becomes the science of the
universal machine observables, and what is observed are invariant
pattern bearing on projection of infinity of computations. UDA1-7
explains this, before the abandon of physicalism.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at