On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:56, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou

Don't avoid my question please.
Where do the laws of physics come from ?

One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is
not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all
possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of
physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe.

That is "Tegmark error". It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list.

Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here.



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