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 duplications.

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 generation).



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to