On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:

Jason(and any others)
  Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
                              Ronald


Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in principle duplicable? This entails subjective indeterminacy. All the rest follows from that, and few people have problems to understand UDA 1-7.

UDA-8, which justifies immateriality, is slightly more subtle, but if you have followed the last conversation on it on the list (with Jacques Mallah, Stathis, ..) you could understand than to block the movie graph argument you have to attribute a computational role to the physical activity of something having non physical activity, and I don't see how we could still accept a digital brain in this case. With just UDA 1-7 you could already understand that most of quantum weirdness (indeterminacy, non-locality, non-clonability) is a qualitative almost direct consequence of digital mechanism (even in presence of a primitively material universe).

AUDA, the Löbian interview, is another matter because you need familiarity with mathematical logic and recursion theory.

Tell me please what you don't understand in the first steps of UDA. I am always interested to have an idea of what is it that people don't grasp. I am writing some "official" papers now, and that could help. Up to now the results are more ignored than criticized, or is considered as crap by religious atheist/materialist, without rational arguments. Tell me if you have a problem with the subjective (first person) indeterminacy. Thanks.

Bruno













On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jason:
I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not
know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
                                                 Ronald

Which message in particular do you think is difficult to
present convincingly? Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or the
suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for
exploration?

Jason

--
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