On 11/20/2011 2:56 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote:

Quoting Bruno Marchal:## Advertising

"UDA shows that physics is determined by a relative measure on computations. If this leads to predict that electron weight one ton then mechanism is disproved. UDA shows that physics is entirely reduce to computer science/number theory in a very specific and unique way (modulo a variation on the arithmetical definition of knowledge)." Bruno--could you please elaborate on this? It's a claim you've (credibly) made many times, and it would be useful to go the next step. I understand that the UDA argument and first-person indeterminacy demonstrates that there are an infinite number of paths through the execution of the UDA that may result in the present 1-pov experience. Since physics, when described from a 1-pov, is merely (!) the explanation of the regularities in those 1-povs, it should be possible to mathematically translate from "computational steps of the UDA" to "laws of physics." One of the best-confirmed formulations of physics has been quantum mechanics. And indeed, as far as I can tell, QM does not contradict your theory--but how would QM "emerge" from your more fundamental notions of computationalism and mechanism? Is this the forefront of your theory, or has work been done to reduce the explanatory gap between, say, modal logics and the Schrodinger equation? Let me ask this in a very different way. Suppose you had at your disposal the a fixed but large amount of funding and researchers to pursue a reformulation of QM based on the work you've done so far. How would you organize the effort? What would you prioritize first? What sub-portions of your theory would be amenable to be parceled out as individual problems to go off and solve? No pressure :-) Johnathan Corgan

Hi Bruno,

`I would like to add that the most important aspect of QM is the`

`non-distributivity of the logic involved. This translates to the`

`nonexistence of a unique partition of observables into a unique set of`

`mutually commuting quantities over (or on) the set of all possible`

`observables. What I would like to know, other than the answer to`

`Johnathan's question, is how do we bridge the gap between computations,`

`which by UDA seems arbitrarily composable and thus distributive, to the`

`non-distributive property of QM. If QM emerges from computations,`

`exactly how does this happen?`

`It can easily be shown that there will always be distributive`

`subsets on the set of observables as the set of Abelian (commutative)`

`von Neumann algebras... But to see things this way points against the`

`idea that we can derive QM from computations and toward the idea that we`

`can derive computations from QM. In other words, while physics does nto`

`seem to be derivable from number theory, we need number theory to do`

`physics. Why work so hard try to derive all from computations when we`

`obviously need both the numbers and the "stuff" to do physics. As I see`

`it, a duality of sorts between matter and mind is inevitable. The hard`

`part is getting people to see the error of the assumption of substance`

`(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/).`

`What I see in your result is an argument against the notion of`

`"fundamental substance" not against the material world per se.`

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.