Dear Stephen,

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 <>

2012/10/17 Bruno Marchal <>

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 future in order to self preserve . This is only possible in a world where natural computers are possible: in a world where the phisical laws have a mathematical nature. Instead of comp creating a mathematical-phisical reality, is the mathematical reality 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, that is, observers.

OK. But harboring self-preserving computation is not enough, it must do in a first person measure winning way on all computations going through our state. That's nice as this explain that your idea of evolution needs to be extended up to the origin of the physical laws.

I donĀ“t think so .The difference between computation as an ordinary process of matter from the idea of computation as the ultimate essence of reality is that the first restrict not only the mathematical laws, but also forces a matemacity of reality because computation in living beings becomes a process with a cost that favour a low kolmogorov complexity for the reality. In essence, it forces a discoverable local universe... ,

In contrast, the idea of computation as the ultimate nature of realtity postulates computations devoid of restrictions by definition, so they may not restrict anything in the reality that we perceive. we may be boltzmann brains, we may be a product not of evolution but a product of random computations. we may perceive elephants flying...

And still much of your conclussions coming from the first person indeterminacy may hold by considering living beings as ordinary material 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 rabbits disappear only on the limit of the whole UD work (UD*).


Dear Bruno,

Tell us more about how White Rabbits can appear if there is any restriction of mutual logical consistency between 1p and in any arbitrary 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.)


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to