On 07/02/11 21:28, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 07 Feb 2011, at 19:22, Andrew Soltau wrote:
Hi Bruno
The first seven steps of UDA makes the following points:
1) that comp entails the existence of first person indeterminacy in
a deterministic context. Step 1-3. This is an original result that I
published in 1988 (although I made a dozen of conference on this in
the seventies). Many academics have criticize this, but their
argument have been debunked. Chalmers did criticize it at the ASSC4.
2) that any measure of uncertainty of the comp first person
indeterminacy is independent of the reconstitution delays (step four).
3) that comp entails first person non locality (step this has been
more developed in my thesis, long and short version are in my web
page). This has been retrieved from sane04 (for reason of place),
but is developed in the original 1994 thesis (and in the 1998 short
version, recently published).
4) That first person experience does not distinguish real from
virtual implementation (this is not original, it is in Galouye, and
it is a comp version of the old dream argument in the greek chinese
and indian antic literature). Step six. In particular indeterminacy
and non locality does not depend on the real or virtual nature of
the computation.
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 Church
Turing sense) in case the physical universe exists primitively and
is sufficiently big.
Because?
Because if you universe is as big as running a UD, and containing UD*,
if by luck you were here and now in a physical universe, at the next
instant you are in the UD* with any reasonable measure of first person
uncertainty. Even multiplied by 2^aleph_0.
If, and only if, you *assume* existence without needing a physical
universe! But this is what you are trying to demonstrate.
In what sense does step seven demonstrate the reversal between physics
and arithmetic a priori, as opposed to a working assumption?
So UDA1-7 is the one of the main result of the thesis. A theory
which want to explain and unify quanta and qualia, and respect comp,
has to derive quanta and qualia without postulating them.
Yes
So you agree we cannot postulate the quanta? We cannot postulate the
physical ? That's the point.
NO. I agree that "A theory which want to explain and unify quanta and
qualia, and respect comp, has to derive quanta and qualia without
postulating them.", which is, of course, the tricky bit!
--
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.
