On 14 Apr 2013, at 23:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 15/04/2013, at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
But of course that is not the case, as comp might be false,
logically. Indeed, it can be shown refutable, and if the evidences
were that physics is Newtonian, I would say that comp would be
Comp implies that there is a substitution level, and it implies that
if we look around us below that substitution level we must find the
traces of the infinitely many parallel computations leading to our
states (by the first person indeterminacy).
Comp implies that physics must be derived from arithmetic, and this
leads to a MW sort of physics, both qualitatively (like in the UDA),
and formally, when assuming the classical theory of knowledge, like in
the translation of UDA in arithmetic. In that case we can generate the
set of experimental configurations capable of refuting comp (or
showing that we are in a second order simulation built to make us
believe in non-comp).
There are other reason as well. A Newtonian physics uses action at a
distance, arguably a non comp phenomenon. Newton was aware of that
problem, and he already took this as a symptom that his physics was
only an approximation, but this has been of course solved by
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.