On 5/20/2012 3:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an
algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all computations going
throught your current state... what is computable is your current
state, an infinity of computations goes through it. So I don't see
the problem here, the UD is not an algorithm which computes the
physical world 4D or whatever.
Maybe you can answer some questions. These might be badly
composed so feel free to "fix" them. ;-)
1) If my "current state" is equivalent to a 4-manifold and the "next"
state is also, what is connecting the two? Markov's proof tells us
that it is not a algorithm. So what is it?
I don't think Markov's theorem tells you that. It says there can be
no algorithm that will determine the homomorphy of any two arbitrary
compact 4-manifolds. But there is nothing that says the next state
can be any arbitrary 4-manifold. In most theories it is an evolution
of the Cauchy data on the present manifold, where 'present' is defined
by some time slice.
"there can be no algorithm that will determine the homomorphy of
any two arbitrary compact 4-manifolds" Exactly. The physical theories
that are used today and accepted as fact define our objective universe
as a "compact 3,1-manifold"(up to isomorphisms), this includes "time" as
a dimension. There is only a technical difference between a 3,1-manifold
and a 4-manifold.
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of
numbers that is equivalent our universe there must exist a computation
of the homomorphies between all possible 4-manifolds. Markov theorem
tells us that no such homomorphy exists, therefore our universe cannot
be considered to be the result of a computation in the Turing universal
sense. It is well known that the act of defining an exact "time slice"
is a computationally intractable problem, the Cauchy surface problem
Physicists use approximations and cheats to get around this intractability.
2) Is there another equivalent set of words for "the physical world
is the limit of all computations going through your current state"?
3) Is there at least one physical system running the computations? Is
the "physical universe" a purely subjective appearance/experience for
each conscious entity? What is it that shifts from one state to the
Well that's a crucial question. Bruno assumes that truth implies
I agree with that claim. An entity must exist for there to be a
true representation of it.
So if 1+1=2 is true that implies that 1, +, =, and 2 exist.
No, existence does not determine or define properties, it is the
mere necessary possibility of such. Just because some unstated sentence
may be true and its referents might exist does nothing to the
determination of the properties of said sentence or its referents.
Properties are determined by physical acts of measurement and by nothing
else, therefore the meaning of the sentence "1+1=2" is indefinite in the
absence of a physical means to evaluate the sentence.
I think this is a doubtful proposition; particularly when talking
about infinities. Even if every number has a successor is true, what
existence is implied? Just the non-existence of a number with no
4) What is the cardinality of "all computations"?
Is the content of Alph_1 sufficient to represent all knowledge?
5) Is the totality of what exists static and timeless and are all of
the subsets of that totality static and timeless as well?
6) Does all "succession of events" emerge only from the well ordering
of Natural numbers?
Do you understand these questions?
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
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