On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2012 7:57 AM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To use this argument, you need to postulate that the physical
exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a
quantum pattern, and that *you* are that pattern.
In that case, you are just working in a different theory than the
theory, and are out of the scope of my expertize. But then develop
Nope. I am not saying that is the case (though I do believe that such
entanglement exists), I am just saying that COMP does not exclude
possibility. Whether or not some digital substitution exists, what is
required to correctly implement it (which also is part of yourself)
itself be not be emulable in the sense that your reasoning requires.
I remind you, COMP does not say "we are digital", it says that a
implemented digital substitution may substitute my current brain/
does not say that this can't require some non-digital component
still getting an artificial brain/body).
I think this is why Bruno sometimes allows that the level of
substitution may not only be low (molecular, quantum,...) but also
extensive: local Earth envrionment, galaxy, universe,... But when
you consider extensive 'substitution' it just turns into saying the
universe is computable.
Only in the case the substitution is so low and so extensive that you
need the whole universe (observable or not).
Now, if that is the case, that has do be proved in Z1* or justified
from some arithmetical variant of G and G* (self-reference logic).
Even if that is true, which I doubt personally, physics is still an
internal emerging pattern in arithmetic.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at