On 07 Aug 2011, at 20:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's why I sometimes return to my engineering viewpoint. It is
easy to speculate that some overarching "everything" construct
includes us and our world as an infinitesimal part.
I suspect a confusion with tegmark's kind of mathematicalism. Comp
gives us (us = the UMs and LUMs) the big role in the emergence of
physics; not an infinitesimal role at all.
Isn't that the measure (aka "white rabbit") problem. Can you show
that the UD does not generate inifinitely many Newtonian worlds? or
chaotic worlds? Do you have to rely on anthropic selection?
We don't have to rely on anthropic selection, but we do have to rely
on relative universal machine-tropic selection. That is why we need
the machine's points of view (the arithmetical hypostases). You are
selected by your most consistent extensions, like with the WM
The UD *does* generate infinitely many Newtonian worlds, but the
machine's points of view, based on self-reference, introduce a
quantization, and if comp is really true, it should introduce some
"phase" and the "negative probabilities" leading to normal quasi-
classical worlds, in a way similar to Everett+Gleason+Feynman. The
fact that p -> BDp is a theorem, for p sigma_1, in the material
hypostases formally confirms the existence of that phase. Does that
phase really make the White Rabbits as rare as they seem to be in our
neighborhoods remains to be worked out (or passed to the next
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at