On 9/15/2011 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2011, at 06:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
You are the one assuming some physical reality. But mechanism can
explains where such physical rules come from. They are consequences
of addition and multiplication. More exactly, their /appearances/
for the average universal machine are consequences of 0, +, and *.
Dear Bruno,
Could you give us a sketch of exactly how 'physical rules' or the
appearance thereof are the "consequences of 0, + and *"? I think that
there is more to the explanation than the fact that 0, + and *
exist.... This is the part of your work that I still do not understand.
Well, it is the second part. the one I call AUDA.
In a sketch.
1) define provable-by-machine-PA in the arithmetical language {0, s,
+, *, "E", "A", etc.}. Like in Gödel 1931. This gives Bp (for
beweisbar <some arithmetical proposition>. This will play the role of
the "scientific rational opinion of the machine".
2) Solovay: the truth about the logic of Bp is given by G*. The
provable part of it is given by G.
3) define the knowledge of the machine by Bp & p. (Theatetus) The
logic of Bp & p is given by S4Grz (a logic of a form of intuitionist
evolving antisymmetrical knowledge.
4) define observable by Bp & Dt (logic Z and Z*-
5) define feel-able by Bp & Dt & p (logic X and X*)
Note that the splitting proof/truth (G/G*) extends to Bp & Dt, and to
Bp & Dt & p; that is the observable and the feel-able.
Then (eneter the arithmetical UD): restrict the arithmetical
realization of the sentence letters p to the sigma_1 sentence. You get
the logic Z1* (quanta and qualia). the quanta appears in the non
communicable part, and are particular case of qualia, and this assure
our coherence: we share histories (this is what Everett confirms the
most: we are collectively multiplied by huge factor, and symmetry and
linearity appears at the arithmetical quantum bottom.
If comp is correct, and if the Theatetus's idea is correct, Z1* gives
the probability one, and you can deduce the other probabilities from
there (von Neumann old criteria for a genuine quantum logic).
I hope I was not too sketchy. Use this to dig on the second part (the
interview of the LUM, it is AUDA) of the sane04 paper.
Bruno
snip
Umm, OK. David Deutsch discusses ideas in his new book that seem to
strongly ague against this idea that an equation, even a sigma_1
sentence that is very elaborate, alone can act as a proof. I am having
to reevaluate my thinking of UDA and AUDA as I read The Beginning of
Infinity...
I still suspect that you are neglecting the role that you are
playing with regard to your work. Without a person (or something like an
entity to whom meaningfulness can obtain) to interpret the sigma_1
sentences, they are not different from a random configuration of marks
on a chalkboard or pixels on a computer monitor. The problem of
Boltzmann Brains in infinite universes seems related to this problem
that I am seeing! You seem to rely to much on a hypothetical 3p to act
as an abstract version of a "perceiver of meaningfulness" without
admitting this reliance. If 3p is truly independent of any 1p, then how
are they related such that we can, as individual minds, have a
subjective experience of 3p aspects of existence?
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
