Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I answer Bruno.
                                               Ronald

On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> > .
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
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