On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> 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. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.