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 universe exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a infinite
quantum pattern, and that *you* are that pattern.
In that case, you are just working in a different theory than the comp
theory, and are out of the scope of my expertize. But then develop
your theory.
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 that
possibility. Whether or not some digital substitution exists, what is
required to correctly implement it (which also is part of yourself) may
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 correctly implemented digital substitution may substitute my current brain/ body. It does not say that this can't require some non-digital component (you are
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to