On 06 Mar 2012, at 05:42, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/5/2012 8:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:24 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>wrote:On 3/5/2012 4:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>wrote:On 3/5/2012 10:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 05.03.2012 18:29 meekerdb said the following: On 3/5/2012 3:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: The experiment takes an operational approach to what Pi means. During the initial stage of the experiment mathematicians prove the existence of Pi. When mathematicians 'prove the existence' of something they are just showing that something which satisfies a certain definition can be inferred from a certain set of axioms. In your example themathematicians may define Pi as the ratio of the circumference tothediameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry. But what does that mean if geometry is not Euclidean; and we know it's not since these mathematicians are in the gravitational field of the Earth. Mathematics is about abstract propositions. Whether they apply to reality is a separate question. BrentI agree that this assumption might not be the best one. I willthink it over.However, I do not completely understand you. How the geometry ofphysical space in which mathematicians reside influences thedefinition of Pi? Mathematicians will consider just Euclideangeometry, that's it. In my view, whether the physical spaceEuclidean or not, does not influence the work of mathematicians.Exactly. Hence mathematics =/= reality.This is like comparing the kidney of a whale to a liver of awhale, and deciding whale=/=whale. You can't compare one limitedsubset of the whole (such as the local part of this universe) withanother subset of the whole (euclidean geometry), and decide thatthe whole (of mathematics) is different from the whole (of reality).The same mathematicians in the same place could 'prove theexistence' of the meeting point of parallel lines or that through apoint there is more than one line parallel to a given line. So nomatter what they measure in their bunker it will be consistent withone or the other. So you can only hold that mathematics=reality ifyou assume everything not self-contradictory exists in reality;Okay. but that was what the bunker thought experiment was intended to test.I fail to see how the bunker experiment tests this. The bunkerexperiment seems to assume that mathematical reality is or dependsupon a physical representation.You've essentially made it untestable by saying, well it may failHERE but somewhere (Platonia?) it's really true.People used to say Darwin's theory was untestable, becauseevolution was such a slow process they thought it could never beobserved. Some on this list have argued that the hypothesis hasalready survived one test: the unpredictability in quantum mechanics.That specific retrodiction came from Bruno's hypothesis which isthat universes are generated by computation. What is computable ismuch less than all mathematics.

`This is not my hypothesis. It might be Fredkin or Schmidhuber`

`hypothesis, but not mine. My hypothesis is the hypothesis that "I am a`

`machine", which is ambiguous, so I put it in the form of "yes doctor",`

`which means that there exist a level such that my consciousness`

`remains unchanged for a digital functional substitution done at that`

`level.`

`And then the reasoning shows that the physical universe(s), are not`

`generated by any computation. Computations generated my consciousness,`

`and the physical universe is what my consciousness can predict from`

`the mixing of determinacy and 1-indterminacy in the UD* (or sigma_1`

`part of arithmetic).`

If instead we found our environment and observations of it to beperfectly deterministic, this would have ruled outmechanism+a single or finite universe. Further, there is a growingcollection of evidence that in most universes, conscious life isimpossible.There's a popular idea that most possible universes are inhospitableto conscious life: a theory that might well be false under Bruno'shypothesis in which consciousness and universes are both realized bycomputation.

`Not really. Only consciousness (although there are instant`

`consciousness: each conscious interval might interfere with the result`

`of the indeterminacy, and in case the level is very low, that might`

`play a role in the qualia).`

In any case it doesn't warrant the conclusion that all possibleuniverses exist.

`Well, it might be simpler to say that comp entails the non existence,`

`and even the non sense of any ontologically primary physical universe.`

`For a comp believer, physical universe is a failed hypothesis. It does`

`not explain the appearance of physical universes, as UDA shows (or`

`should show).`

This can also be considered as confirmation of the theory thatthere exists a huge diversity in structures that have existence.Just because one proposed test will not work should not imply atheory is untestable.A final thought: Consider what our universe would look like if youwere a being outside it. You would not be affected by the gravityof objects in our universe, for gravity only affects physicalobjects in this universe. You could not see the stars or galaxiesof our universe, for photons never leave it. There would be norelativity of size, or time, or distance between your perspectiveand that within our universe. You could not say what time ithappened to be in our universe, or whether the world had evenformed yet or long ago ended. You could in no way make yourpresence known to us in this universe, for our universe is bound tofollow certain fixed laws. In summary, outside our universe thereis no evidence we even exist; our entire universe is merely anabstract, immutable and timeless mathematical object.That's a complete non sequitur.From the outside, one could study our universe through the windowof math and computer simulation,I could study a mathematical or computational representation, butthat's not the same as studying our universe -

`In case such a universe exists in some basic ontological sense, but`

`that's incompatible with the idea that the brain works like a natural`

`machine.`

Bruno

unless you beg the question.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.