Re: The free will function

```

________________________________
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Fri, February 24, 2012 11:58:51 AM
Subject: Re: The free will function

On 23 Feb 2012, at 15:12, marty684 wrote:

>
>
>
________________________________
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:48:10 AM
>Subject: Re: The free will function
>
>
>
>On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote:
>
>Bruno,
>>             If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP)

Nothing is "made of". Everything appears in the mind of Universal numbers
relatively to universal numbers, with hopefully reasonable relative statistics.

Think about a dream. If you dream that you drink coffee, you can understand
that
such a "coffee" is not made of anything. The experience of coffee is due to
some
computation in your brain. With the big picture apparently implied by comp,
even
the brain is like that dreamed coffee: it is not made of anything. It is only
locally made of things due to the infinitely many computations generating your
actual state.

The "matrix" metaphore, or the Galouye "simulacron" metaphore is not so bad.
And we don't need more than the numbers + addition and multiplication to get an
initial dreaming immaterial machinery.

Thanks for this vivid clarification. But...

Read UDA. You might understand that if we are machine (numbers relative to
other
numbers), then we cannot knowwhich machine we are, nor which computations
supports us, among an infinity of them. Everything observablebecomes
probabilistic. The probability bears on the infinitely many computations going
through your actual state (that's why they are relative).

Why should probability depend on us; on what we 'know or cannot know' ? On what
is 'observable' to us? It seems to me that you are defining probability by that
which is relative to our 'actual states'. Why can't we
inhabit a seeminglyprobablistic part of an infinite, determined universe ?

But that is the case. If you define the reality by a tiny part of arithmetic
(equivalent with the UD), you have a deterministic structure, which from our
points of view will look indeterministic.

The probability are relative to us, because we are the one doing the
experience.
Suppose you decide to throw a coin. To predict what will happen to you you have
to look at all the computation accessing the computational state you have when
throwing the coin, and infer what will happen from a measure on the
continuations.

I'm delighted to learn that I understood you after all. Thanks for this
further clarification.

problem, so we might single out the precise point where you don't succeed to
grasp why comp put probabilities, or credibilities, uncertainties,  in front of
everything. UDA1-7 is enough to get this. UDA-8 is needed only for the more
subtle immateriality point implied by computationalism.May be you have a
problem
with my english. Please, begin by the step one, on page 4 of sane04, read it,
and tell me precisely what you don't understand in the step 1.  I might need to
re-explain comp to you, or you can glance its definition on page 2.

>
>
>
>My attempts to read UDA were never successful. Sorry.
>

When you will grasp step 1, we will be able to go to the 2th step, and so one.

Bruno

I don't have a problem with your english. I have a problem with
the logical complexity of your work. Also I no longer remember where to find
the
text you're referring to. Warmest wishes,   marty

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
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

```