On 11 Jul 2011, at 20:08, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/7/11 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
On 7/10/2011 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse perhaps with Schmidhuber's position, or some digital
physicist (DP). But as I have explained many times here that this
position does not work. Computationalism or digital mechanism (DM)
is the idea that "I" am a machine, and by the first person
indeterminacy, and the way the laws of physics have to emerge from
computations, the physical universe (nor the fundamental reality)
cannot be described entirely by a computation. On the contrary it is
a sum on an infinity of computations.
If the universe is a computation, then "I" am computable, but then
it cannot be a computation (by what I say above, it is not obvious).
So with comp, or without comp, the physical universe is not a
computation. With comp, the laws of nature are not computable, or
have strong non computable components.
DM -> ~DP
DP -> DM,
So DP -> ~DP, so ~DP.
This confuses me. When you say the universe is not computable, you
mean it is not the process of computing a function. But you think
it is generated by a UD. Right? In other words, you are saying
what a UD does is *not* a computation.
No he is saying that the univese is the result of an infinity of
computation going through its current state... an infinity of
computation is *not computable*, hence digital physics is false.
The UD of course runs all programs and is computable, but the UD
generates and runs *all* programs, it's not a program that computes
Yes indeed. I think Brent forgot the first person indeterminacy. The
universe is not something computed by the UD. The universe is how the
UD is seen from the views of those who are computed by the UD.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at