On 17 Jan 2010, at 09:11, Brent Meeker wrote:

## Advertising

Brent "The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable." -- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate, phyiscs 2004So, why is Nothing unstable?Because there are so many ways to be something and only one way tobe nothing.

`I suspect Frank Wilczek was alluding to the fact that the (very weird)`

`quantum vacuum is fluctuating at low scales.`

`Indeed in classical physics to get universality you need at least`

`three bodies. But in quantum physics the vacuum is already Turing`

`universal (even quantum Turing universal). The quantum-nothing is`

`already a quantum computer, although to use it is another matter,`

`except that we are using it just by "being", most plausibly right here`

`and now.`

`Nothing is more "theory" related that the notion of "nothing". In`

`arithmetic it is the number zero. In set theory, it is the empty set.`

`In group theory, we could say that there is no nothing, no empty`

`group, you need at least a neutral element. Likewize with the`

`combinators: nothing may be tackle by the forest with only one bird,`

`etc.`

Maybe you're a brain in a vat, or a computation in arithmetic. I'mhappy to contemplate such hypothesis, but I don't find anythingtestable or useful that follows from them. So why should I acceptthem even provisionally?

`We may accept them because it offers an explanation of the origin of`

`mind and matter. To the arithmetical relations correspond unboundedly`

`rich and deep histories, and we can prove (to ourselves) that`

`arithmetic, as seen from inside leads to a sort of coupling`

`consciousness/realities. (Eventually precisely described at the`

`propositional by the eight hypostases, and divided precisely into the`

`communicable and sharable, and the non communicable one).`

`This can please those unsatisfied by the current physicalist`

`conception, which seems unable to solve the mind body problem, since a`

`long time.`

`Why shouldn't we ask the question "where and how does the physical`

`realm come from?". Comp explains: from the numbers, and in this`

`precise way. What not to take a look?`

`To take the physical realm for granted is the same "philosophical`

`mistake" than to take "god" for granted. It is an abandon of the`

`spirit of research. It is an abstraction from the spirit of inquiry.`

`Physicalism is really like believing that a universal machine (the`

`quantum machine) has to be priviledged, because observation says so. I`

`show that if "I am turing emulable", then in fine all universal`

`machines play their role, and that the mergence of the quantum one has`

`to be explained (the background goal being the mind body problem).`

`But if you follow the uda, you know (or should know, or ask question)`

`that if we assume computationalism, then we have just no choice in the`

`matter. The notion of matter has to be recovered by those infinite`

`sum. If not, you are probably confusing computation (number`

`relations) and description of computations (number describing those`

`number relations). It is almost like confusing i and phi_i. It is the`

`whole point of the universal dovetailer argument (uda).`

`To sum up, unless we continue to put the mind under the rug, like`

`Aristotelian, we have just no choice here.`

`The goal is not in finding a new physics, but in deriving the (unique,`

`by uda) physics from logic+numbers through comp. A priori, that`

`physics could be useless in practice, like quantum physics is useless`

`in the kitchen. The advantage is that this "solves" conceptually (as`

`much as it show it possible) the consciousness/matter riddle.`

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-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.