-----Original Message----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 AM 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think 

On 10 Mar 2011, at 13:47, Andrew Soltau wrote:

> All the moments exist, and as Deutsch points out, as you summarise,  
> 'The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that  
> there are different frames that have an implicit sequence and in  
> which the observers state is different', but for change to actually  
> happen, the magic finger must move. Otherwise reality would be like  
> a movie film sitting in the can in storage.

The change in the "working program" is brought by the "universal  
machine" which interprets it. All you need is an initial universal  
"machine". It happens that addition and multiplication, with first  
order logic is enough to define such an initial universal system, and  
the UDA+MGA shows that the laws of mind, including the laws of matter,  
does not depend on the choice of the initial universal system.

So elementary arithmetic does emulate, in the mathematical sense,  
computations. Arithmetic does not just describe all those  
computations: it literally emulate them. This is not trivial to show,  
although computer science gives the insight. Computations in  
arithmetic are not like movie, they are like a observer line universe  
in a block universe.

To add an external time reintroduces a mystery where it is not needed.  
That use of time is like the use of "God" as gap explanation by the  
pseudo-religious (authoritative) people. You will end up with a  
primitive time, a primitive matter, and why not a primitive "god"  
responsible for all this.

That is, in my opinion, the correct insight of Deutsch. Except that he  
mentions an "implicit sequence", which is typically made explicit by  
the universal machine which emulates, albeit statically or  
arithmetically-realistically, the computation. All computations in  
that setting are ultimately based on the explicit sequence 0, s(0),  
s(s(0)), ... (or the equivalent in the combinators, etc.).



Dear Bruno,

    I only really have one difficulty with this thought: What choose that 
particular "initial universal 'machine'"? If it cannot be shown to be unique in 
contrast to all possible machines, what makes it special? We may be blinded by 
the sophistication and brilliance of our logics but can we really be sure that 
there is not a deeper level at which this  Löbian machine is just another in a 
vast infinitude? 

    Consider G. Chiatin's Omega! 

    I question the entire premise of a "special initial conditions"! Why must 
we believe that there really is a singularity that 'causes' it at all? Why must 
we recycle that old theological idea? Are there no viable alternatives?



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to