On 9/13/2012 1:36 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/13/2012 4:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He
does not see several things that are problematic.
1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute
structure of relations, there is an infinity that cannot be reduced.
They are not unique, but however they are chosen they represent the
same structure. There is no unique representation of QM: wave
functions, Hilbert space, Feynmann paths,... But they all predict the
same physics and so represent the same structural relations.
2) the physical implementations of the representations cannot be
abstracted away without making the entire result meaningless.
I have some sympathy with this, but Bruno is trying to explain the
physical as computational, so he can't very well assume the physical.
Although he frequently refers to eliminating the physical, when asked
he quickly says he's only explaining the physical and eliminating it
as *primitive*. I don't see that as any more problematic or unusual
than explaining quarks by strings or spacetime by
loop-quantum-gravity. You're not *eliminating* anything - you're just
trying to explain it.
Well said. I agree! I jsut wanted to highlight a different point of
view from Bruno's. My comments are not a knock-down of his result, it is
just an attempt to focus on a different aspect of it.
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