On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM, acw <a...@lavabit.com> wrote:

> On 2/10/2012 14:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
>> On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
>>>  Another way to think of it would be in the terms of the Church Turing
>>>>> Thesis, where you expect that a computation (in the Turing sense) to
>>>>> have result and that result is independent of all your
>>>>> implementations, such a result not being changeable in any way or by
>>>>> anything - that's usually what I imagine by Platonia. It is a bit
>>>>> mystical, but I find it less mystical than requiring a magical
>>>>> physical substrate (even more after MGA) - to me the platonic
>>>>> implementation seems to be the simplest possible explanation. If you
>>>>> think it's a bad explanation that introduces some magic, I'll respond
>>>>> that the primitively physical version introduces even more magic.
>>>>> Making truth changeable or temporal seems to me to be a much stronger,
>>>>> much more "magical" than what I'm considering: that arithmetical
>>>>> sentences do have a truth value, regardless if we know it or not.
>>>> [SPK]
>>>> I am only asking that we put the abstract world of mathematics on an
>>>> even footing with the physical world, I am _not_ asking for a
>>>> "primitive" physical world. I will say again, just because a computation
>>>> is independent for any particular implementation that I, you or any one
>>>> else is capable of creating does not eliminate the necessity that
>>>> somehow it must be implemented physically. Universality of computation
>>>> is NOT the severing of computation from its physical implementability.
>>>> This is not the same kind of claim as we see of the ultrafinitist and/or
>>>> constructivist; it is just a realistic demand that ideas cannot be free
>>>> floating entities. We cannot believe in free floating numbers any more
>>>> than we can believe in disembodies spirits and ghosts.
>>>>  What is a non-primitive physical world, what is it based on?
>>> 'Existence'? What is that, sounds primitive to me. If we accept
>>> 'existence' as primitive, how does math and physical arise out of it?
>>> It seems so general to me that I can't imagine anything at all about
>>> it, to the point of being a God-like non-theory (although I can
>>> sympathize with it, just that it cannot be used as a theory because
>>> it's too general. We'll probably have to settle with something which
>>> we can discuss, such as a part of math.)
>>> Why is 'physical' implementation so important? Those "free floating"
>>> numbers could very well represent the structures that we and our
>>> universe happen to be and their truths may very well sometimes be this
>>> thing we call 'consciousness'. As for 'spirits' - how does this
>>> 'consciousness' thing know which body to follow and observe? How does
>>> it correlate that it must correlate to the physical states present in
>>> the brain? How does it know to appear in a robotic body or VR
>>> environment if someone decides to "upload" their mind (sometime in the
>>> far future)? What's this continuity of consciousness thing?
>>> Granted that some particular mathematical structure could represent
>>> the physical, I'm not sure it makes sense gran the physical any more
>>> meaning than "that which we(our bodies) observe as being part of".
>> Hi ACW,
>> A "non-primitive world" would be a world that is defined by a set of
>> communications between observers, however the observers are defined. The
>> notion of a "cyclical gossiping" as used in graph theory gives a nice
>> model of how this would work and it even shows a nice toy model of
>> thermodynamic entropy. See #58 here
>> <http://books.google.com/**books?id=SbZKSZ-1qrwC&pg=PA32&**
>> lpg=PA32&dq=cyclical+**gossiping+graph+theory&source=**
>> bl&ots=NAvDjdj7u-&sig=**kk03XrGRBzdVWI09bh_-yrACM64&**hl=en&sa=X&ei=**
>> jCI1T8TpM4O4tweVgMG_Ag&sqi=2&**ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=**false<http://books.google.com/books?id=SbZKSZ-1qrwC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=cyclical+gossiping+graph+theory&source=bl&ots=NAvDjdj7u-&sig=kk03XrGRBzdVWI09bh_-yrACM64&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jCI1T8TpM4O4tweVgMG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false>
>> >
>> for a statement of this idea. Also see
>> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/**Gossiping.html<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Gossiping.html>
>>  A model which allows communication might be nicer to look at, but I
> don't see why it's *required*. I also don't see how it predicts different
> things than a model which just has a 'shared computation'/'shared
> substrate' for each observer?
>> Onward!
>> Stephen
>> RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical
interactions as they each contain the laws of physics; and collectively
they may manifest consciousness as well as perhaps Platonia and "cyclic
gossiping" as their variable properties across the universe may manifest a
Peano arithmetic. Regarding communication each spherical element/manifold
instantly maps all the other manifolds and all physical phenomena to its
interior. http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0044

> --
> 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<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
> .

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