Hi Bruno

## Advertising

The first seven steps of UDA makes the following points:1) that comp entails the existence of first person indeterminacy in adeterministic context. Step 1-3. This is an original result that Ipublished in 1988 (although I made a dozen of conference on this inthe seventies). Many academics have criticize this, but their argumenthave been debunked. Chalmers did criticize it at the ASSC4.2) that any measure of uncertainty of the comp first personindeterminacy is independent of the reconstitution delays (step four).3) that comp entails first person non locality (step this has beenmore developed in my thesis, long and short version are in my webpage). This has been retrieved from sane04 (for reason of place), butis developed in the original 1994 thesis (and in the 1998 shortversion, recently published).4) That first person experience does not distinguish real from virtualimplementation (this is not original, it is in Galouye, and it is acomp version of the old dream argument in the greek chinese and indianantic literature). Step six. In particular indeterminacy and nonlocality does not depend on the real or virtual nature of thecomputation.

All good so far.

Step seven itself shows the reversal between physics and arithmetic(or any first order theory of any universal system in post ChurchTuring sense) in case the physical universe exists primitively and issufficiently big.

Because?

So UDA1-7 is the one of the main result of the thesis. A theory whichwant to explain and unify quanta and qualia, and respect comp, has toderive quanta and qualia without postulating them.

Yes

You have also that comp + ~solipsisme entails first person plural MW.Normally comp should imply ~solipsisme, but as I explain this part isnot yet solved in the concrete.

?

Now most people (among interested) understand UDA1-7, that is, thatcomp + *very big* universe entails the reversal. If you have noproblem with the first person indeterminacy, with the invariance forreconstitution delays, with the inability of first persons todistinguish (in short time) real and virtual, I don't see what youmiss in the step seven. 7 is a direct consequence of 4,5,6.

Because?

`These simply show that the structure of information / algorithm /`

`computation defining the mind of the observer is simultaneously present`

`in a very large number of different physical instantiations.`

`I say that this means that the effective physical environment of this`

`observer is the simultaneity of all of those physical environments. This`

`is the concept I call 'universe superposition'.`

The result applies equally to a reality basically physical or arithmetic.

`The result is personal parallel physical realities for each and every`

`observer, which I find very interesting and exciting.`

`This is because, in each such reality, the effective physical`

`environment (quantum mechanical, or arithmetically simulated quantum`

`mechanical) is determinate only where observed. Thus each observer is in`

`a very special position in their reality, in that all the other`

`observers are effectively icons in this reality, of other parallel`

`realities.`

`So the difference between me and others in my reality suggests solipsism`

`- only I am real and fully defined in my reality. At the same time, we`

`are all in the same situation, which is why I call it multisolipsism.`

`Naturally, all this applies irrespective of whether the basis of reality`

`is physical or arithmetic.`

`But I don't see why any of that implies 'the reversal between physics`

`and arithmetic'. It does imply that the determinacy of the effective`

`physical environment of the observer is defined by, and only by, the`

`structure of information defining the observer, as held in many-minds`

`theories. This is all part of the universe superposition concept. But we`

`still require a physical reality for all this to be instantiated in.`

`Now, you can postulate that this physical reality itself is simulated,`

`or purely arithmetic. And I have no problem with that. But I do not see`

`how this is shown to be the case.`

`To do that, you would have to show that the appearance of all of this`

`going on is the natural result of arithmetical processes in the absence`

`of physical instantiation. This is what I am all agog to have explained`

`to me!`

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.