On 13 Feb 2011, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:

## Advertising

Hi Bruno, -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:48 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Multisolipsism On 13 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Stephen Paul King wrote:I am very interested in this question as it directly relates to myquestions about how interactions between multiple and separable 1-p. I continue to be confused by this term "body problem incomputer science". Could you discuss it in some greater detail?The body problem and the white rabbit problem are variant of the general problem of explaining the belief in a physical universe from numbers and computer science, without the assumption that there is a primary physical reality (or that there is no primary physical reality). The UD Argument is supposed to justify this in detail. (AndAUDA justifies the non boolean and quantum nature of the logic ofwhatis observable by asking a 'Löbian number' her opinion on the matter (no pun intended). ** [SPK]OK, sure, but that about considerations of one 'Löbian number'communicating with another? That is what my questions are about.DM + ~solipsism can be shown to entail the coherent multiplication of shared computations, that is first person plural shared dreams. To show that DM entails ~solipsism by itself, you have to solve the body problem first. The other minds problem should be easily soluble from the solution to the body problem, and the key notion is interaction. But interaction is still problematical even in quantum logic, and a fortiori in the arithmetical logic. I think you need the "degenerate" material hypostases: the 'B^n p & D^m p' nuances. With m > n, you get arithmetical quantum logics, and you almost get the tensor needed for the interactions. Unfortunately those tensors don't behave so well. Those tensors arise from a Temperley-Lieb like structure related to the arithmetical modal projection operators (B^n p & D^m p). This, if it works, could explain how space arise from numbers, and why the dynamic is governed by a unitary transformation. Space seems to be defined only by the conditions of making multi-observers interaction possible. Just remember that we have to extract this from arithmetical self- reference only, in a very special particular way, so that we don't loose the qualia in the process. Indeed the qualia, including the quanta, are provided by the intensional variant of the Solovay G/G* splitting. *** [SPK]Ok, but cannot you see that "fist person plural shared dreams" isexactly (or close enough!) to what we see in the Many worldinterpretation for each and every notion of an observer but does notsolve the question of "how is it that I experience this particularreality and not some other"? Yes, there is a correlation between theobserver as a memory within all of the related parallel worlds suchthat we do not have empty memories/ Zombie observers, but this doesnot get us far enough toward answering the question. ~Solipsismalone is necessary but not sufficient. DM + ~solipsism works butonly because the definiteness of properties (that is the key featureof physicality) is hidden in the Yes Doctor! DM assumes all offeatures of Physicalism and but throws again the word physical. Oneneeds to stop looking at the words and consider the properties andfeatures that the word refers to! What does it mean to be physicalas opposed, for example, to mental or ideal?To bet on the Yes Doctor is to bet that there is somethingdefinite in the sense that the outcome either is or is not acontinuance of consciousness upon digital substitution. It is thefeature of persistence of properties over time. Physicality refersto a set of invariances under transformations such that thosetransformations or dynamics exist separate and independent of any 1-p cogitation. be it via Bp & D or whatever modality. It is the rootof the idea of Machine and is implicit in the Turing Theorem and itsvariants. There must be something that is like a tape and somethingthat is like a read/write device for the Turing Machine to exist asa model and the properties of being a tape and being a read/writedevice must be such that they persist under the continuation fromone operation to the next.

`This is not a problem. That bottom kind of invariance relies on the`

`"invariance" of the + and * laws of the numbers. If comp is correct,`

`it promise more stable foundations and invariants than anything thing`

`extrapolated from empirical observations.`

One cannot extract change from changelessness unless one extendsExistence into a continuum of possibility and allows the furtherexistence of methods that can contrast one subset of that continuumwith some other, but this can only happen within finite and impropersubsets of the continuum and this the ideals that we propose to bethe case at the continuum level do not faithfully translate into thefinite filters. It is in the finite filter levels that we obtain thepersistence of properties under time translations and thus time -the ordering of succession - emerges at that level. Time does notand cannot exist at the level of the Continuum of Existence itself.It is, as Russell Standish pointed out, a zero-information set. Theduality that I propose for finite filters vanishes and we obtain aneutral monism that is neither mind (ideal) nor matter (material).

`All that is OK with comp, except that the assumption of numbers is a`

`bit higher than zero information. You cannot get the natural numbers`

`from logic alone.`

Quantum Mechanics has this definiteness only with the inclusion ofthe vehicle of the Born Rule and is the source of the measurementproblem: How do we cross the chasm between linear superpositions ofpossible properties to the definiteness of properties such that wecan have a definite set of alternative to bet upon. We cannot betupon superposed properties because there is no "or" between them,the properties form a continuum that can only be cut from the outside.

`The "or" comes from the first person indeterminacy, and if UDA is`

`correct and if the quantum description is correct, the quantum or is`

`comp "or" shared by populations of machines (numbers).`

The answer is interaction via Pratt's proposed state transition ofChu spaces and it is what I am investigating. My proposal is that wedrop the insistence on tensor products since they require theequivalent of a global synchronization and consider alternatives.The alternative that I propose is the way that time is treated as alocal variable in Hitoshi Kitada's Interpretation of QM. This makesthe variable of time in QM consistent with Relativity, but this idearequires that we treat quantum mechanical systems as asynchronousand non-pre-harmonized Leibnizian monads and thus require analternative definition of interaction which I have developed asbisimulation via quantum pseudo-telepathy.BTW, the empty spots between objects in a space could be definedas "the places an event could occur but does not" such that theentire space is an undivided whole. So on one hand a space can beseen as a distribution of dust as the dual of a Boolean algebra, anda complete whole object that is a single speck of dust within alarger space, this is a non-Archimedean extension. This is just amatter of figuring out the mereology that we are using in ourontology. I am proposing that we use non-well founded sets andultrametrics as a basis for ontology and thus have self-referencebuild into our logics and their duals, but we could instead takeyour modal extensions and dualize them via the proper extension ofthe Stone Representation Theorem. The hard part is to not imposeglobal flatness on our structures, we should never treat ourhypostases as all existing on the same ontological level!

`As far as I can figure out what you are saying here, that might be`

`relevant, or not, at some stage, but might be premature in the Digital`

`Mechanist theory.`

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 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.