On 06/03/11 19:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:16, Andrew Soltau wrote:Hi Bruno On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote:BTW, you did not answer my last point on the comp reversal, at theUDA step seven.From that previous emailStep 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.It is this 'reversal' which I do not follow. You do not seem to meansimply and solely the reversal of the primacy of physics and arithmetic.I do.

OK

The details of the proof makes it also a reversal between physics andcomputer science, and even between physics and "computer's theology orself-reference".Some predicted to me in the eighties that all the "materialhypostases" would collapse (here it means the modality Bp, and Dp andp would be equivalent), so that the logic of physics would beclassical propositional calculus. If that did happen, it would havemean that physics is empty, and that everything 'physical' is actuallygeographical. There would be no physical *laws*, and we would havebeen able to find place in the universe with arbitrary laws. But thematerial modalities did not collapse, and the quantum principleappears as a very plausible general trait of the universal machine.Step seven establish that physics is a branch of arithmetic.the reversal of the primacy of physics and arithmetic.Yes. The theory of everything is basically addition+multiplication inthe natural numbers. But there are many equivalent theories.That schroedinger equation has to be redundant.Why should it be redundant? It predicts the results of experimentswith the highest precision known to any science in the history of thehuman race.That alone suggests that SWE might a theorem, and not an axiom orsomething to be inferred from observation. Isn't it?

`Slightly lost here, since you state just above that " the quantum`

`principle appears as a very plausible general trait of the universal`

`machine. "`

Step 1-7 is the reduction of the mind body problem to a purelymathematical body problem. It is the contrary of the idea thatparticles and fileds result from a classical algorithm.I was not aware that anyone thinks that particles and fileds resultfrom a classical algorithm. What point are you making?That comp, which reduce physics to number theory, is not digitalphysics, which makes the universe (particles and fields) a computablething (and thus that physics could be rendered by a classicalalgorithm, like a classical program computing a quantum computer forexample).My point here was the distinction between comp and digital physics.

`So, by "the reduction of the mind body problem to a purely mathematical`

`body problem" I understand you to mean that the contents of awareness`

`are computable. But I am having difficulty understanding why this is the`

`*"contrary"* "of the idea that particles and fileds result from a`

`classical algorithm.". Surely, particles and fields could still result`

`from a classical algorithm, and in the context of that simulation, the`

`simulation of the contents of awareness can be a process ongoing. I`

`understand now the distinction between comp and digital physics, but why`

`is comp the contrary of digital physics?`

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.