On 04 Apr 2011, at 04:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi,

I need to issue a clarification. What the heck does inertia – the property of remaining in a given state of motion unless acted upon by an external force have - to do with Nietzian Recurrence? Consider the UD as eternally running. Within it are all possible worlds expressed as strings of integers.

You are confusing worlds and programs. Physical worlds are useful fictions in the mind supported by infinities of programs (by the UD argument). (I assume comp by default).




What prevents a given string from being arbitrarily extended by one more integer and another and another and another ....? Nothing! Thus is the string happens to be a particle moving through space, how would we code the effect of a force acting upon that particle such that it experiences a change in its momentum? What would distinguish the “force acting upon the entity” from the entity itself?

UDA shows that no piece of matter, nor consciousness can be represented by a number. You are back to a 19th century conception of machine.




How does a string of Integers alone code all of the interactions between the entities that it represents? Oh, that’s right, if I assume ideal monism I am not allowed to think that numbers “represent” physical events.

Comp does not assume ideal monism. Idealist monism is a consequence of comp and some amount of occam.





In ideal monism there is no physicality at all, there is only numbers and relations between numbers encoded in the numbers themselves via Gödelization.

Encoded or not. Some number relations are encoded, but some are not even encodable. For both consciousness and matter, some non encodable relations matter.




So ok, we can Gödelize the Gödel numbers and then Gödelize them again ab infinitum. So far no problems. But how do we Gödelize the computation of whether or not a smooth diffeomorphism exists between pair of space-time manifolds? Or more generally, does there exist a Gödel number for a theory equivalent to a general solution to an arbitrarily large NP-Complete problem? If there is then it might lead to a proof that P = NP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

I confess that I still do not have a wording to express my thought on this, but I need to put this claim out there.


OK. Not sure I see the relevance of this, it is also ambiguous. You can certainly try to be clearer. I think that you forget how the UDA works.

Let me answer here the other recent post you sent. You say that we need a good notion of interaction, and so comp is incomplete. You are partially right: we need indeed a good notion of interaction.

But we want to solve the mind-body problem in the theory which assumes comp. Then the UD reasoning shows that we have to extract the laws of physics, including interaction, from modalities based on self- reference. So, despite we need a good notion of interaction, we cannot just add it to comp, we have to retrieve it *from* comp and elementary arithmetic or combinators. If not, we can no more relate the qualia to the quanta in a way which satisfy the global sigma_1 (UD) indeterminacy.

Of course, a good independent theory of interaction (like Girard's Geometry of Interaction, GOI) can be very useful in helping such a derivation. But conceptually we cannot just assume it without extracting it from the theory of quanta and qualia already derived from the comp hyp.

Bruno



From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 5:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Causality = 1p Continuity?
Hi Bruno,

    Sometimes I feel that you are not reading what I write at all. :(

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 1:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Causality = 1p Continuity?
snip
> We need the physical world to be the interface between our
> separate minds,
> otherwise we will be trapped in the UD in endless
> Poincare recursions. This is the nightmare that Nietzsche saw.

[BM]I doubt this, but if that were true, that would not been a reason to
abandon comp. Only a reason to hope that comp is false. But comp is
not yet sufficiently developed to start having premature fear of it.

[SPK] Unless there is something that acts as a limit on the expressions of the UD then how do we recover inertia?


--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to