On 07/02/11 21:28, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Andrew,## Advertising

On 07 Feb 2011, at 19:22, Andrew Soltau wrote:Hi BrunoThe first seven steps of UDA makes the following points:1) that comp entails the existence of first person indeterminacy ina deterministic 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 theirargument have 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),but is developed in the original 1994 thesis (and in the 1998 shortversion, recently published).4) That first person experience does not distinguish real fromvirtual implementation (this is not original, it is in Galouye, andit is a comp version of the old dream argument in the greek chineseand indian antic literature). Step six. In particular indeterminacyand non locality does not depend on the real or virtual nature ofthe 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 ChurchTuring sense) in case the physical universe exists primitively andis 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 nextinstant you are in the UD* with any reasonable measure of first personuncertainty. 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 theorywhich want to explain and unify quanta and qualia, and respect comp,has to derive quanta and qualia without postulating them.YesSo you agree we cannot postulate the quanta? We cannot postulate thephysical ? 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.