On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
> The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
> talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his
> hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be performed to "find"
> Because UDA+MGA shows that even if a "real" primary physical universe
> exists, it cannot explain anything related to what I can feel to observe
> from my 1p view.
> Obviously, the appearance of a universe makes it natural to believe that a
> simple explanation is that such a universe exists, but this has been shown
> to not work at all, once we assume we are Turing emulable. So f you are
> right, then there must be flaw in UDA+MGA, but each time we ask you to
> point where it is, you come up with philosophical reason to discard comp
> (without always saying it).
> Hi Bruno,
> The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
> of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
> that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly proving that the physical world
> does not exist.
How many times do we have to tell you that's not true?
> Why is that a problem? Because without a physical world, it is impossible
> for that theory to have any properties. You want to get around this problem
> by postulating that the entities of UDA+MGA can and does have a particular
> set of properties merely because they exist. OK, but how does the existence
> of an entity define its properties?
> I do not blame him as this problem has been glossed over for hundred of
> years in math and thus we have to play with nonsense like the Axiom of
> Choice (or Zorn's Lemma) to "prove" that a solution exists, never-mind
> trying to actually find the solution. This so called 'proof" come at a very
> steep price, it allows for all kinds of
> This is unclear. Comp is axiom-of-choice independent. Even arithmetical
> truth is entirely axiom of choice independent. ZF and ZF + AC proves
> exactly the same arithmetical truth.
> "COMP is Axiom of Choice independent" ... Does this means that COMP is
> independent of any particular version of AC or does it means that the truth
> of a statement is just the existence of the statement as an abstract entity
> in an isolated way? I am just trying to be consistent with what I
> understand of UDA+MGA. UDA+MGA, as far as I can tell, proposes that the
> physical world does not have an existence independent of our experiences
> and since our experiences can be represented exactly as relations between
> numbers, that all that exists is numbers. Correct?
> If this is correct, then my questions turn on what exactly are numbers
> and how do they acquire properties. 1 is a 1, a 2 is a 2, and 3 is a 3. But
> what is it that defines what a 1 or a 2 or a 3 is? We could think of this
> as a set of different patterns of pixels on our computer monitors, of marks
> on paper, or a chalkboard, or apples, bananas, or trees. But this avoids
> the question of "what is it that ultimately gives 1 its one-ness?".
> Alternatively, we can think of these symbols as physical representations of
> sets or classes of objects, but then we have to define what that means. The
> easiest way to do that is to point at objects in the world and make noises
> with our mouth or, if we are mute, to make signs with our hands and/or
> grimaces with our faces.
> Obviously, all of this is taking a 3p or objective point of view of
> objects, symbols, etc. but as we know, this is a conceit as we can only
> guess and bet that what we observe is "real" in that it is not just a
> figment of our imagination that vanishes when we stop thinking of it. I am
> being intentionally absurd to illustrate a problem that I see. If we are
> going to claim that the physical world does not exist then we have to be
> consistent with that claim and cannot use any concepts that assumes the
> properties of a physical world. My claim is that UDA+MGA violates this
> requirement by using concepts that only have a meaning because of their
> relation to physical processes and yet claiming that those very processes
> do not exist.
> A possible solution to this problem, proposed by many even back as
> far as Heraclitus, is to avoid the requirement of a solution at the
> beginning. Just let the universe compute its least action configuration as
> it evolves in time,
> This does not work, unless you define the physical reality by
> arithmetic, but this would be confusing. It seems clearer and cleare that
> your "existence" axiom is the postulate that there is a physical primary
> reality. But then comp is wrong.
> What I see as wrong about COMP is how you are interpreting it. You are
> taking its implied meaning too far. I claim that there is a limit on its
> soundness as a theory or explanation of ontological nature, a soundness
> that vanishes when it is taken to imply that its communicability becomes
> impossible - a situation which inevitably occurs when one interprets COMP
> as a claim that the physical world does not exist.
> At least Craig is coherent on this. he want some primitive matter, and
> he abandons comp. His theory is still unclear, but the overall shape make
> sense, despite it explains nothing (given that he assume also a primitive
> sense, and a primitive symmetry).
> I do not want primitive matter, as this would put us into the
> situation that the material monist are in, with the epiphenomenal nature of
> consciousness. I just want abstract representations and physical object on
> the same level. I think that we can agree that the physical world cannot be
> primitive in the ontological sense, but can you not see that
> representations cannot be primitive either if only becuase to claim that,
> for instance, that only numbers are primitive eliminates the possibility
> that one number has a particular set of properties that makes it somehow
> different from another number.
> Also, you have been using the word "neutral" to mean "indifferent" in
> a way that is similar to "I am indifferent to whether cows prefer chocolate
> ice cream over vanilla ice cream". I mean neutral to mean "not having any
> bias for some set of properties over any other". These two meaning are very
> similar but the latter is more general than the former because the latter
> is not considering the entity that might have a particular set of
> properties (which implies a choice of properties and thus my comments about
> the axiom of choice) while the former is taking the case of indifference
> about some particular state of affairs given from a particular point of
> view. It is a 1p versus a 3p difference. No?
> At issue is the question of how does the definiteness of the
> properties of an object, be it abstract - like the concept of a number - or
> concrete - like the keyboard that I am typing on, come to be what it is.
> You seem to claim that properties are defined by the mere existence of an
> object. I am not understanding how you think that such is possible. We can
> make claims that A exists and that A is A, but what is A independent of any
> claims we might make of it?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at