On 2/14/2012 7:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    2012/2/14 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net 

        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" it.

        Because UDA+MGA shows that even if a "real" primary physical universe 
        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 
        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 
        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.

    It does not prove that the physical world does not exist... it proves that a
    *primitive* material world is irrelevant to predict your next moment, the 
    physics of the world. Whether there is a primitive material world or not 
    change your expectation of your next moment, rendering this primitive 
material world
    devoid of explanatory power.


This reminds me of the GHZM quantum experiment which seems to suggest that a pre-existing reality does not exist at least according to Lubos Motl. Is that anything like what you mean?

It's not really that a primitive physical world would be devoid of explanatory power. After all it is the implicit working assumption of almost all scientists. What it primitively explains is that some things exist (are primitive and physical) and other things don't. On this list, the working hypothesis is that 'everything' (in some sense) exists and so there is no explantory function for primitive physics. The fact that it seems impossible to explain qualia in terms of physics also argues against taking physics as primitive.


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