Sorry, I misunderstood the premise. Thanks for the quick reply.     marty a.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 2:16 AM
  Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step series 
thread will soon be resumed

  On 07 Nov 2009, at 01:04, m.a. wrote:

                  Good to see you back! I have a question with reference to the 
experiment described in the first person indeterminacy paper. If, before the 
teleportation, the omniscient authority tells the subject that he will find a 
zero in his envelope, both subjects will expect to find a zero after the 
procedure, no? The subject who finds the 1, must inevitably conclude that he is 
in fact a duplicate since he trusts the OA implicitly and reasons that if he 
were the original (real) subject, he would be seeing a zero. Where is the flaw 
in my logic?        marty a.

  The subject of the experience believe in comp, and knows the protocol of the 
experience. So he knows the "original" will be destroyed or annihilated after 
the scanning procedure. He know in advance that both subject are duplicate, and 
so "I am the duplicate" does not make sense. 

  Even if he decides to trust the OA, and then to abandon comp if he is in 
front of the "one" in the envelop, he will feel as being the original person 
(we still assume comp), with the memory that the OA told him that he will find 
"zero", which will make him rightly say "for me right now the OA was wrong, 
whatever I am".

  The experience here was symmetrical. From the first person perspective it 
makes no sense at all to say "I am the duplicate". We know, and he knows, and 
the OA knows, in advance, that they are both "duplicate".


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bruno Marchal
      Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:45 AM
      Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh step 
series thread will soon be resumed

      Hi all,

      Welcome to fcy

      "Universal Dance Association" is quite cute :) A universal dance could be 
a Universal Dovetailer if "digital dance" could make sense.

      UDA (in this list) is for Universal Dovetailer Argument. You should 
google on this term, on the net or on the everything-list archive. You may look 
here also for references:

      A universal dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all 
possible programs. It is a mathematical object and its existence follows from 
the Post-Church-Turing thesis.

      The universal dovetailer argument  is an argument which shows that the 
mechanist hypothesis leads to a notion of strong first person indeterminacy, 
and that eventually the laws of both physics and psychology/theology (quanta 
and qualia) have to be derived from "pure" number theory/computer science.

      If I succeed to explain UDA sufficiently well, I will be able to give 
some account of AUDA which is far more sophisticated, and useful only to get 
already quantitative physical information from numbers/computer science (as 
opposed to UDA which "just" show that physics has to be given by a first person 
measure on the computations occurring in the universal dovetailing).


      Elsevier has asked me to write some topics on its SciTopics. You may take 
a look at

      Comments are welcomed.

       I let you know that I will have some more time for now (October was very 
heavy!). So it is time to ask questions for the thread "the seven step series" 
(which is about the seventh step of the UDA) before I proceed. I will make a 
little sum up next week. There has been more than five versions of UDA already 
send to the list, but I am not sure everyone understand, so please ask 
questions. All questions are allowed on this non moderate list, so feel free, 
to ask anything (related) to the everything-like approach in the search of a 
"TOE" (Theory of everything-including-consciousness-and-person (as opposed to 
the TOE of the physicians which search to unify only what is observable and 
third person describable).

      Marty, Kim, are you still there? Have you a problem with Cantor diagonal 
proof of the non enumerability of the set of functions from N to N (N^N)? Or do 
you prefer I explain this again in the sum up?

      On 05 Nov 2009, at 06:03, fcy wrote:

        As a newcomer to this group, there are many things I'm unable to
        follow, in detail, due to unfamiliarity with many of the acronyms.

        For instance, googling UDA turns up links related to the Ulster
        Defense Association, the Universal Dance Association, Urban Design
        Associates, and the United Dairymen of Arizona, none of which seem to
        be what's being discussed here.

        Thanks in advance,



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