Dear Stephen,

## Advertising

On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:44, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/19/2012 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 17 Oct 2012, at 22:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:2012/10/17 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> 2012/10/17 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> On 17 Oct 2012, at 10:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:Life may support mathematics.Arithmetic may support life. It is full of life and dreams.Life is a computation devoted to making guesses about the futurein order to self preserve . This is only possible in a worldwhere natural computers are possible: in a world where thephisical laws have a mathematical nature. Instead of compcreating a mathematical-phisical reality, is the mathematicalreality what creates the computations in which we live.So all kind of arbitrary universes may exist, but only (some)mathematical ones can harbour self preserving computations, thatis, observers.OK. But harboring self-preserving computation is not enough, itmust do in a first person measure winning way on all computationsgoing through our state. That's nice as this explain that youridea of evolution needs to be extended up to the origin of thephysical laws.I donĀ“t think so .The difference between computation as anordinary process of matter from the idea of computation as theultimate essence of reality is that the first restrict not onlythe mathematical laws, but also forces a matemacity of realitybecause computation in living beings becomes a process with acost that favour a low kolmogorov complexity for the reality. Inessence, it forces a discoverable local universe... ,In contrast, the idea of computation as the ultimate nature ofrealtity postulates computations devoid of restrictions bydefinition, so they may not restrict anything in the reality thatwe perceive. we may be boltzmann brains, we may be a product notof evolution but a product of random computations. we may perceiveelephants flying...And still much of your conclussions coming from the first personindeterminacy may hold by considering living beings as ordinarymaterial personal computers.Yes, that's step seven. If the universe is enough "big", to run a*significant* part of the UD. But I think that the white rabbitsdisappear only on the limit of the whole UD work (UD*).BrunoDear Bruno,Tell us more about how White Rabbits can appear if there is anyrestriction of mutual logical consistency between 1p and in anyarbitrary recursion of 1p content?

`We assume comp. If a digital computer processes the activity of your`

`brain in dream state with white rabbits, it means that such a`

`computation "with that dream" exist in infinitely many local`

`"incarnation" in the arithmetical (tiny, Turing universal) reality.`

`If you do a physical experience, the hallucination that all goes weird`

`at that moment exists also, in arithmetic. The measure problem`

`consists in justifying from consistency, self-reference, universal`

`numbers, their rarity, that is why apparent special universal (Turing)`

`laws prevails (and this keeping in mind the 1p, the 1p-indeterminacy,`

`the 3p relative distinctions, etc.)`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.