# Re: Niettzean Recurrence!

```
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
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
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