On 10/20/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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 <agocor...@gmail.com <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>>

    2012/10/17 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto: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 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) 
        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 
        extended up to the origin of the physical laws.

    I donĀ“t think so .The difference between computation as an ordinary process 
    matter from the idea of  computation as the ultimate essence of reality is 
    the first restrict not only the mathematical laws, but also forces a 
    of reality because computation in living beings   becomes a process with a 
    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 
    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 
    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,

And their very specific correlation with the physical brain states of sleep.


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