# Re: COMP theology

```
On 27 Feb 2012, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:```
```
```
```On 2/27/2012 11:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```
```
You can make matter behave in any way relatively to virtual reality that you are building, but the 3-creature, relative to you, will be able to deduce from their observation that they are in a simulated reality, by comparing what they can measure with what can relatively emerge from *all* computations.
```
```
That sounds good but its implementation is problematic. What can relatively emerge from all computations is not something we can know if your theory if correct.
```
Why?
```
On the contrary we can know that by interviewing simple machine that we can prove to be correct, like PA.
```

```
And if what can emerge is essentially anything (which I think is likely)
```
```
The propositional logic of the observable have already been derived. It is not *anything* at all. It is a precise arithmetical orthologic, or minimal quantum logic.
```
```
Let me give you an example how to test comp in practice. You can take a quantum-empirical tautology, like a Bell inequality:
```
A & B => (A & C) V (B & ~C)

```
which is true in the Boolean algebra, but not necessarily satisfied in "physical" comp, as it is not in the natural quantum ortholattice of quantum propositions.
```
```
You need to represent it in modal terms, by using the quantization translation of Goldblatt, this gives:
```
[]<>A & []<>B => []<>([]<>A & []<>B) V ([]<>B & []<>(~[]<>C)

```
This should be seen as a formula in the material hypostases, so you need to translate this in G*, this will give a very long formula, because just []<>A becomes []([]A v <>A) & <>([]A v <>A), so we get
```

```
[]([]A v <>A) & <>([]A v <>A) & []([]B v <>B) & <>([]B v <>B) => etc (very long due to the double nesting of the quantizations []<>#).
```
```
This gives a long formula that you can test in G*, more exactly in G*1 (G + p->[]p, need to makes the machine assuming comp, and restricting herself on the UD accessible states).
```
```
The whole formula is already to complex for my 1990 modal theorem prover, unfortunately. My translation above is also not completely correct because the deduction "=>" should be replaced by "->", which itself is rather long to translate. But my point was only illustrative.
```
```
If G* does not find a counter-example to the last, corrected, formula, it means that the comp-physics does not violate the simple Bell inequality. If G* finds a counter-example, then you can read it as a description of a possible experience in the comp physics which violates that Bell's inequality. G* is complete, and you can ask it all experiences/counter-examples to that Bell inequality.
```
```
In 1990 I predicted that comp (+ classical knowledge theory) would be refuted before 2000. This has not yet happened, though. From a paper of Rawling and Selesnick there are evidences that comp might define a canonical quantum computer in the background physics of all universal machine. That is some comp-physics tautologies seems to be rich enough to implement universal quantum gate.
```
```
Anyway, by the UDA reasoning you can know that we should get the whole physics in the corresponding, non necessarily propositional, logics, so it is hard to imagine a more "refutable" theory than comp, once we accept Theaetetus or the classical theory of knowledge (verified notably by the Theaetetus idea when applied on the notion of comp belief).
```
Bruno

```
```then no observation can falsify the theory.

Brent

--
```
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 .
```
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