# Re: The limit of all computations

```
On 20 May 2012, at 21:06, 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.
```
Quentin

```
```Hi Quentin,

```
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.
```
```
```
```
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 next?
```
```
Well that's a crucial question. Bruno assumes that truth implies existence.
```
```
That makes no sense. Only truth of existential statement entails existence. "s(s(s(0))) is prime' entails "Ex x is prime"
```

```
```So if 1+1=2 is true that implies that 1, +, =, and 2 exist.
```
```
```
This is because we assume logic, and P(n) ===> ExP(x) is an inference rule in first order logic. And this works for 1 and 2, not for "+" and "=", which might exist for different reason, as well defined subsets of the models or as relation at the meta-level or through their GĂ¶del numbers.
```

```
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 successor.
```

```
```
4) What is the cardinality of "all computations"?
```
```
Aleph1.
```
```
From the 1-views (or from the 3-view of the many 1-views).

Bruno

```
```
```
```
```
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?
```--
Onward!

Stephen

"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 everything- l...@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 .
```

--
```
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