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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to