# Re: first person indeterminacy

```
On 19 Mar 2011, at 21:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:```
```
```
```on 19.03.2011 20:16 Bruno Marchal said the following:
```
```
On 19 Mar 2011, at 18:04, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

```
```...

```
```
At this point I am not sure that I agree with oneness of the mind.
```
```
quasi-certainty is that physics is a projection of arithmetical truth
done from inside arithmetical truth by LĂ¶bian numbers.

```
If you understand the first person indeterminacy (that's step 3 of the UDA), what about step 4? 5? 6?, and 7? With 7 normally you see that if the physical (primary or not) universe is *robust* enough to run a UD,
```then the reversal physics/computer science is accomplished (in a
```
constructive way(*)). Step 8 eliminates the assumption of robustness and
```"primary existence".
```
```
```
As I have written, I rather follow my intuition rather than logic. So I cannot explain why I do not go further with step 4, 5, 6 and so on. It well may be that my unconsciousness do not believe in "Yes, doctor", I just do not know.
```
```
I don't know either. In science we never know, that is why we try to make clear the theories, and to derive propositions *in* such theories.
```

```
```For the moment, I prefer just to follow discussion.
```
```
At least you say so, that's fair enough.

```
```
```
On the other hand, I am practitioner and I like more pondering for example what happens if to put together Watson (IBM computer that won Jeopardy) and Big Dog
```
```
```
```
Big dog is very impressive, and Watson too, but in very different domains. In AI the difficulty is in the integration of knowledge, and the development of a sense of self.
```
Bruno

```
```

```
```Bruno

(*) it leads to an algorithm to extract the logic of the observable
```
(that is AUDA, the splitting between G/G* provide the splitting between
```the communicable and the non communicable, the nuance ("Dt") separate
```
first person and first person plural, etc. That approach justifies and explains, in some sense, the qualia, and the quanta as special qualia. I
```did not expect this, but it is coherent with the fact that comp + non
```
solipsism entails "many-words" (that is multiplication of populations of machines histories). What is lacking is an arithmetical tensor product. But we cannot add it, we have to extract it from arithmetic if we want
```to keep the theory correct with respect to the qualia. The math of
self-reference is well developed to at least formulate the problems.

```
```
--
```
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 .
```
```
```
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