Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 05 Jan 2010, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote:

Nick Prince wrote:
Is this because you think of your stream of consciousness as somehow
like a reel of film?  All the individual pictures could be cut from
the reel and laid out any which way but the implicit order is always
there.  I can understand this because all the spatio temporal
relationships for the actors in the film remain "normal" i.e obey the
laws of physics.

But there's the rub.  Why the laws of physics?  That's what somehow
needs to be explained.  Is there something about the UD that necessarily
generates law like sequences of states with high probability?


By definition, the UD "generates" all and only the (computable) law like sequences.

But only "law like" in the sense of being computable. Not necessarily "law like" in conserving momentum in a 4-space with Lorentzian signature.

The problem is that the "physical law like sequence have to be justified", indeed. This is what is interesting in comp. It gives a solid theory of mind (computer science, mathematical logic, machine self-reference, etc.), and it transforms the mind body problem into a body problem.
The laws of physics have a reason, an origin.




Doesn't
it generate just those laws we seem to find - that would be a great
discovery.

The UD generates all the laws.
It may or not generate the laws we seem to find.
In any case, those laws have to be a sum on all the (computable) laws. (ud argument).



Or does it generate all possible non-self-contradictory
multiverses - in which case nothing has been explained.

The UD executes all programs. It generates all the possible computations, those which terminate and those which don't terminate. It is well defined mathematically, with respect to many equivalence results, closure results, Church thesis, etc.

Yes, I understand that.

A notion like "consistent extension" makes sense only for the "persons" relatively appearing "in" deeper computations, so the precise relation between "consistent extensions" and the UD needs the use of the Gödel Löb provability logics.

So do they allow a definition of "consistent extensions" such that "persons" can be identified with sequences of consistent extensions and those "persons" will define one or more universes in terms of intersubjective agreement? That's where you lose me - I don't see how this is to be done.

Brent



Bruno



Deutsch argues similarly in the Fabric of reality.
In my work I often come across the idea of a foliation of
hypersurfaces which is really a set of 3D pictures "stuck together and
stacked in the direction of the time coordinate of the world at a
given instant of time.

But that's starting with the physics given, so the hypersurfaces and
their relation is already defined.

Brent

In MW interpretation though I guess that the
stacking is less certain as in the block universe idea but that's
another issue.  Is this analogy similar to how you feel  the "obvious"
experience of time being normal?

Best

Nick
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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.



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-l...@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