On 02 Nov 2011, at 19:55, compscicrackpot wrote:

## Advertising

How is many-worlds compatible with my free will?

`Like Kim observed, this is an eternally recurring question. But it is`

`an important one. It might be a question where I differ a bit from`

`Stathis. Of course my answer is strictly in the line of the so-called`

`compatibilist approach to free-will.`

`So I do believe in free-will in a completely deterministic mono-world.`

`If a God can predict what I will do, this does prevent me to act with`

`my own free-will. If my friends, who know me rather well, can predict`

`that I will look at this or that movie, that fact by itself does not`

`change my wanting to see those movies, and my corresponding acts.`

`Adding indeterminacy would not help a iota in that situation.`

`Actually, a decision made with a coin, would be less free than a`

`decision which I do with my own consent.`

`Many-worlds does not change anything in this. The many-worlds`

`reintroduces determinacy, although it adds a first person`

`indeterminacy. But I can change the relative proportion of worlds I`

`can access too by the normal decision process. here the point is that`

`"many-worlds" does not say that all possibilities are equivalent. It`

`says somehow that all possibilities occurs, but with different ratio.`

`I will not jump out of the window, despite I know I will survive the`

`jump, because I know also that I will survive in bad conditions in`

`most of the worlds. I prefer to take the lift, and in that way, I will`

`experience the usual Gaussian of normal extension. Likewise for any`

`decision I could make, I will be responsible for my actions in the`

`normal worlds. Only near death I might access to less and less normal`

`worlds, but that is another topics.`

`Is free will real, or is it an illusion. This will depend on how you`

`conceive free-will. I like to define free-will by the ability to be`

`aware of a spectrum of possibilities (a form of ignorance of the`

`immediate futures) and choose accordingly, with only partial`

`information (so that such a choice is not necessarily 100%`

`justifiable). That is real and even unavoidable for self-referential`

`person/machines. Again, a sort of Laplacian God could know in advance`

`what I will do, but as I said, this does not prevent free-will. Such a`

`God has no relevance for the question of free will, because it must`

`stay mute. If he/she/it does the prediction, and tell me the result, I`

`might change my mind (just to contradict that God).`

What is the most fundamental mechanism of the universe? if it is the most fundamental, how are its rules encoded and applied ie. what is the fundamental computer?

`Assuming mechanism, you have a lot of choice for the fundamental`

`'ontology + mechanism'. Either`

- the natural numbers + addition and multiplication, - the combinators + application, - the lambda programs + abstraction and application, - the billiard ball + elementary mechanics, - the braids + braiding, - the Mandelbrot set + zooms (I suspect) etc.

`Being realist on one of them, makes you realist on all of them,`

`because, amazingly enough perhaps, they entirely reflect each others.`

`You can simulate, even emulate (simulate exactly) the numbers with`

`addition and multiplication with the combinators and application, and`

`vice versa.`

`For reason of simplicity, I suggest to use the natural numbers +`

`addition and multiplication. This automatically assures the existence`

`of a universal dovetailer (a program generating and running all`

`programs), and the whole execution of the dovetailer is entirely`

`emulated by the arithmetical sentences and their proofs (themselves`

`represented in term of addition and multiplication). This emulates`

`also all much richer theories and machines. Arithmetical truth gives a`

`block-universal mindscape.`

`Basically, the reason why you exist right now, and are reading a post`

`by me, is that the statement "compscicrackpot read the 04-november`

`2011-mail by Bruno" is a theorem of elementary arithmetic. It is a`

`complex theorem, with a very long and complex proof.`

`More difficult: the reason why you are still reading the post, and not`

`transformed into a white rabbit while reading the post, must be that`

`the proportion of computations leading to the proof of`

`"compscicrackpot STILL read the 04-november 2011 mail by Bruno" is far`

`bigger than the proportion of computation where compscicrackpot has`

`been transformed into a white rabbit while reading this post.`

`If this is taken seriously, you can guess that we have to justify`

`completely the laws of physics from addition and multiplication only`

`(and good definition of the internal machine/numbers views).`

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Here there is a bad news and a good news.

`Bad news. IF we do not postulate one of the system above (numbers`

`+addition and multiplication, or combinators, etc). We cannot get any`

`of them. So, if we want a reality in which numbers, or programs,`

`machines, can make sense, we have no choice: we have to postulate one`

`of such system. They are irreducibly mysterious. That will remain a`

`mystery forever.`

`The good news, is that, once you postulate one of those systems, you`

`get the whole big picture. Matter and mind are explained by the`

`epistemology of the creatures existing in such systems. In fact the`

`picture is similar to Indra Net, but with a more clear dynamical`

`components. Once you have the numbers, you have an infinity of`

`universal numbers reflecting all the other universal numbers, but also`

`interacting with them, and this in all partially computable ways. This`

`gives a web of dreams, and theoretical computer science (and logic)`

`can explain why some dreams becomes sharable among sufficiently`

`similar type of universal creatures (first person plural realities).`

`To sum up: Church-Turing thesis rehabilitates completely Pythagorus`

`and Plato kind of non naturalistic theology. Contrary to materialism,`

`this approach does not evacuate souls (persons), nor even gods and`

`goddesses, nor even especially a big one without a name, as I`

`illustrate in the paper on the arithmetical interpretation of`

`Plotinus. The incompleteness phenomenon justified why *any*`

`sufficiently 'honest' machine looking inward develops a mystical`

`component. In fact, consciousness is already the zeroth stage of being`

`mystic (i.e. in a state of knowing some unprovable truth).`

OK? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.