On 04/02/11 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,

2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@googlemail.com <mailto:andrewsol...@googlemail.com>>

    Hi Bruno


        In step seven what is proved is that

        MEC + 'big universe'  entails that physic is a branch of
        computer science.
        Do you see that?


    I have no problem with the concept that psychology is a branch of
    computer science.

        Step 5 plays the big role there. You don't need to be
        annihilated for having your continuations determined by the
        first person comp indeterminacy on UD*, once a UD, a fortiori
        an omega point, is in the physical universe.

        In step eight, the assumption of the existence of a big
        universe is eliminated. Roughly because no universal machine
        at all can distinguish arithmetical reality from anything
        else. This throws away the need of any universe. Physics has
        to be justified by number relations only (numbers or any
        elementary terms of a Sigma_1 complete theory).

        OK?

    OK in that 'no universal machine at all can distinguish
    arithmetical reality from anything else.' We cannot tell if we are
    in a simulation, obviously.
    This leaves us with the white rabbit problem.


        With the whole UDA1-8, you should understand that all what has
        been done, by the use of MEC, is a reduction of the mind body
        problem to a body problem in computer science.

    This seems straightforward.


        At first sight we might think that we are just very close to a
        refutation of comp, because, as I think you have intuited,
        there might be an avalanche of first person 'white rabbits'
        that is aberrant, or just "white noisy" experiences.

        To find a proper measure on the consistent continuations is
        very difficult, and that is why I have restricted myself to
        the search of the logic of the certainties, for Löbian
        machines. Löban machines are chosen because they have enough
        introspection power and cognitive abilities to describe what
        they can prove about their certainties, and what they can
        infer interrogatively. That is not entirely trivial and relies
        mainly on the work of Gödel, Löb and Solovay (and Post,
        Turing, Kleene, etc.)

    Perhaps you can explain the principle on which there is a
    restriction of white rabbits.
    Our experience, apparently of the phsyical world, is entirely
    devoid of white rabbits.


You can't infer that because you do not observe white rabbits that there is none ;)

Quite like the anthropic principle, if at each moments there are overwelmingly more moments where you are just turned into gaz dust... there exists a continuation of you (at least one) that is consistent with a world devoid of WR. The WR problem seems the same question as ... Why am I in that particular universe ? You are because that is consistent with you... As you can't feel all the other you who have not your luck you can't say that because you do not observe it, it is not like that after all...

If tomorrow you observe a WR (a magical one ;) ) well... You'll know at least you're no more in a physical world devoid of white rabbits... and you can begin to be really scared ;)

Also I think you will agree that all continuation where you're not... have a zero measure (from your POV). So you can't be where you can't be, nothing to be astonished here ;)

Regards,
Quentin

    Thus, at each moment, the range of possible next observations is
    always observed to be constrained precisely according to the
    quantum formalism.
    Given that the only definition of the history of the observer is
    the record of observations, I am greatly intrigued to know how one
    can, at each moment, even in principle, derive the sensory
    specific next moment, according to quantum rules, from this
    structure of information.




-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "Everything List" group.
    To post to this group, send email to
    everything-list@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
Hi

'White Rabbits' is Bruno's shorthand for physically impossible observations. At least, as I understand it.

My query is that, since we only ever observe the environment to be in accord with physical quantum law, how can a purely arithmetical environment, which necessarily includes all possible computations, give rise to only observations which are self evidently observations of a physical environment, and a quantum environment at that.

Andrew

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