On Feb 6, 5:30 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:30, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this > >>>> pov. > > >>> I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs > >>> than > >>> physical multiverses. > > >> Prove this. > > > It's already stated by Tegmark. Further proof is given by the > > fact that physics uses only a subset of mathematics. > > Tegmark is right on third person mathematicalism. I did show before > that if you assume comp you don't need more than arithmeticalism.
> good thing because "mathematical" is harder to define than > arithmeticalism. Note that mathematicalism subsumes the ontology of > arithmeticalism. But Tegmark doesn't take into account neither the > first person indeterminacy (local or global), nor a theory of mind > (which in case of comp it is easy, given that it is computer science > and computer's computer science, ...) > > > > >> Once you take into account the relative points of view (of the > >> machines, by using the self-reference logic for example > > > Prove that. > > Sorry. I don't have to do that. I am the one translating a problem > (the mind-body problem) into a body problem in computer science or in > arithmetic. > If you believe that comp leads to WR, show them to me, I believe that a level IV multiverse leads to WRs and you haven't explained how comp solves the problem. > and justify > your measure choice. I already have There are more physically incoherent universes than coherent ones. and there are many more that are mostly incoherent than those that are coherent, and there are many more that contain a little coherent me in a see of incoherence than there are that are wholly coherent. Beyond that, I don;t need any special measure: that's a hoop that those who are seeking to solve the WR problem need to jump through > Which is truly an open problem at the least. > And then I show that by taking the points of view of the self- > referentially correct machine into account (which is perhaps just an > elementary politesse) we have to take into account a catalog of points > of views to just formulate the problem. > > Bruno > > > > > > >> ) this is > >> already refuted. Mathematical reality kicks back. > > >> 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 [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
