On 10/24/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:What difference does what they refer to matter? Eventually therehas to be some physical process or we would be incapable of eventhinking about them! The resources to perform the computation areeither available or they are not. Seriously, why are you overcomplicating the idea?Let us be clear. For humans to be able to think, not only you need aphysical process, but you need a solar system, a planet, ... manythings, including much resources.

Dear Bruno,

`Sure, but that only is about explanations of the physical systems`

`involved. But let me ask you, given that there is a 1p for each and`

`every observer, does it not follow that there should be a bundle of`

`computations for each and one? There would be a great deal of overlap`

`between them (as that would be equivalent to the commonality of the`

`experienciable content of the observers). The point is that the`

`computation is not of a single object in a world. We have to consider`

`computational simulations of entire universes!`

But, ...... for the couple [thinking humans===== Earth, solar-system-physicalprocess-resource] you need only arithmetic.A bit like in Everett the couple [physician's sad consciousness infront of a collapsed wave===== a dead Schroedinger cat] you need onlythe universal quantum wave.Just that once we assume comp "enough consciously", if I can say, theuniversal wave itself, if correct for observation, has to be retrievedfrom a larger statistics, on all computations, going through ourlocal computational states.Literally, the laws of physics are invariant from the choice of thephysical basic laws, as long as they are at least Turing universal(synonym important for AUDA: Sigma_1 complete).

`I am not sure what this means: "laws of physics are invariant from`

`the choice of the physical basic laws". Could you explain this more?`

Literally: very elementary arithmetic is a good TOE: x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + xIt is in *that* theory, that we have now to define the notion ofobservers, believers, knowers, experiencers, experimentalists, andformulate a part of the "measure problem". Mathematically, we cantest the first person limiting observation by the person "incarnatedby the genuine computation" in arithmetic.Another TOE: ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z))It operates on the combinators, and the combinators are K or S, or (x,y) with x and y combinators. So (K, K), (K, (K, S)), ((K, K) K), etcare combinators.What they do? They obeys the laws above.Those defines Turing universal realities, and they will emulate/defineother universal realities, in the same relative proportions, whichwill be the observers-universe, a coupled universal machine (it isanother way to view LĂ¶bianity (although technically it is a bit weaker)).Any universal machine contains in itself a sort of war between *all*universal machines until they recognize themselves.Obviously some universal machines get more famous than other,apparently, like ... well arithmetic, combinators, but also, inrelation with the observable reality, quantum computers.It makes comp testable, or at least the definition of observer,believer, knower used in the derivation of physics, and here I provideonly the propositional physical theory (and even some choice asdifferent quantum logics appears in S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*, the logic of thematerial hypostases, in Plotinus terms).

`All of that is a theoretical explanation, that supposes that since`

`arithmetic is all that is needed to encode all of the information and`

`representations, but this is just an explanation, nothing more. Until we`

`can derive phenomenology that can be tested, we have only a hypothesis`

`or conjecture. My proposal is that, following Pratt's suggestion, we`

`consider the arithmetic to be equivalent to a Boolean algebra and its`

`evolution is "the computation" of the UD. That way we do not have a body`

`problem, since the dual of the Boolean algebra, the topological space,`

`is the body whose evolution is physics.`

With comp, trying to singularize consciousness with a particularuniversal machine (a physical reality), is like a move to select abranch in a wave of realities, and can be seen as a form of cosmicalsolipsism negating consciousness for vast span of arithmetical truth,just because those realities are only indirectly accessible, bylooking below ours substitution level.

`But solipsism is not the absence of consciousness, it is the`

`inability of one 1p to bet on the existence of the possible content of`

`other 1p.`

I have translated a part of the "philosophical" mind-body problem inmathematics (and partially solve it).

`Sure, but your claims of an immaterial monism worry me. It is as if`

`you have resurected Berkeley's Idealism in a formal mathematical model`

`and dismissed the attack by Mr. Johnson (who famously rebounded his foot`

`from a rock and yelled 'I refute it thus.') as "an arithmetic body problem".`

I made a mistake as the mathematicians don't know about the mind bodyproblem, and the philosophers don't know the math (here: computerscience/mathematical logic).

`Sure, I cannot write it, but I do understand it. I can barely write`

`English! It is hard to explain the effects of dyslexia.`

The physicists, at least those who don't believe in the collapse arecloser to get the picture coherent with what can be like a physicsfrom the persons supported by the combinators reduction (or by thenumbers addition and multiplication), as it has to be the case if weassume comp.When I will have more time I will continue to explain the math neededfor this.Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>

-- Onward! Stephen -- 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.