On 16 Mar 2010, at 02:55, m.a. wrote:

## Advertising

Bruno,Another plea for understanding. For clarity I willdelete some questions from previous pages leaving only the ones thatcontinue to puzzle me, in bold type.

By "computer" I assume you're referring here to the arithmeticaluniverse of comp rather than to a silicone-based machine.

`It is preferable to see a computer , may be programmed, as a finite`

`thing, a number, "living" (existing) in the arithmetical universe,`

`once we assume comp.`

`There exist an infinity of such universal numbers in the arithmetical`

`universe. They verify that phi_u (, x, y) = phi_x(y). It is the golem:`

`you write the finite things x and y on its front, and he do the work`

`of the machine/number x on the input y.`

How can there be indeterminacy in comp when there are no materialparticles subject to Heisenberg's theory, only numbers? Is there anelement of chance in the universal dovetailing of pure numbers?

`Of course. This results from the seven first step of UDA. There is a`

`total 3-determinacy , which multiplies any of your state an infinity`

`of UD-times, in an infinity of computations, which entails, from`

`*your* first person point of view to a very strong form of`

`indeterminacy. You cannot know in which computations you are, and the`

`physical emerges from that statistics.`

`Comp provides the stronger form of subjective, or first person`

`indeterminacy. If I am machine I am duplicable. Cf the Washington`

`Moscow self-duplication. You cannot predict in advance if you will`

`feel to be the one reconstituted in Moscow, or he one reconstituted in`

`Washington.`

`Then, the way you quantify that indeterminacy does not depend on the`

`time and delays of the reconstitutions, nor of the virtual, real, or`

`eventually arithmetical reconstitution. So your future states depend`

`on all the arithmetical consistent extension states, of your current`

`state, existing in the UD platonic execution.`

`The Universal Dovetailer (or just elementary arithmetic) generates you`

`current states infinitely often, belonging to an infinity of possible`

`computational histories. The physical laws have to be justified by`

`that indeterminacy of your relative states/histories existing in`

`arithmetic.`

`You may (re)read cautiously the UDA (from SAN04). The key is that a`

`third person determinacy (like the UD works) generates from the point`

`if view of the subjects a very strong form of indeterminacy due`

`notably on the fact that below their s-comp substitution level, there`

`are an infinity of histories going through their states; and`

`measurement at that level have to be given by a distribution of`

`probabilities on the computations, as seen from inside (that is with`

`respect of memories).`

`The key relies in the understanding of the 1 and 3 person distincts`

`points of view.`

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.