# Re: Movie cannot think

```Dear Stephen,
```
```
On 10 Mar 2011, at 16:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:

```
```-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 AM
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.).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

**
Dear Bruno,

```
I only really have one difficulty with this thought: What choose that particular "initial universal 'machine'"?
```

Because it is shown that it is enough to derive mind and matter from it.

```
Because it is shown that, if we accept the comp bet, it *has to* be enough. And adding anything more betrays the solution of the 1-3 person relations.
```
```
Because it is taught in high school, and with few exception accepted and used by everybody.
```
```
Because it can be shown to be necessary, in the sense that any weaker theory cannot derive it.
```

```
If it cannot be shown to be unique in contrast to all possible machines, what makes it special?
```
```
I insist that any first order logical specification of a universal system will do. I have tried to introduce the combinators instead of numbers, but people were a bit uneasy with it, so I take the numbers, which are equivalent with respect to our goal.
```
```
What makes it special is Church thesis, in the comp motivation. The closure of the set of partial computable function for the diagonalization procedure.
```

```
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?
```

```
RA is not Löbian. RA is the TOE. RA is equivalent with the UD, and it generates the histories which contains the much more complex Löbian machines. I interview the Löbian machine because they have the maximal introspective power possible.
```
```
RA is the TOE, the Löbian machine are the internal observer. They are much clever than RA. I think as clever as you and me.
```
Also, in science, we are NEVER sure. Comp might be false.

```
```
Consider G. Chiatin's Omega!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constant

```
```
OK.

```
```
```
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?
```

What initial conditions?

```
I think you are confusing "initial condition" and the theory we might choose.
```
```
I give a theory, quite simple and already known by everybody. And I provide its internal intensional epistemologies/theologies, in the most classical way (Aristotle's logic, Plato Tarski's semantic, George Boole's law of thought, Gödel, Löb, ... Solovay, or simpler George Boolos' laws of mind, Plotinus' theology... and Pythagorus' ontology).
```
```
Church Post Kleene Turing Markov thesis resurrects Pythagorus' ontology, with someone no one expected: the universal machine. That's a recurring creative bomb on this planet and it is a typical event in the modern (post Gödel) arithmetical Platonia as seen by its inhabitant.
```
```
In UDA i provide a formulation of the mind body problem in the comp frame, understandable by good willing humans. In AUDA i show we can already ask the question to the universal numbers, and get some answers, and some silence too.
```

```
Why must we recycle that old theological idea? Are there no viable alternatives?
```
```
Yes. Just say say "no" to the digital mechanist surgeon, and this for all levels. You are free to study those alternatives. G and G* will still apply on a large initial segment of the classical theory of self- reference, though.
```
I am a modest scientist (and this should be an oxymoron).
I mean that I have no clue of the truth.

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