Re: 0, + and * => Physical laws ?

```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 GĂ¶del 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

```