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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
