On 13 Oct 2013, at 08:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Maybe this will help. Here are two criticisms of comp, and two hypotheses which aim for a more mathematical treatment of PIP principles under MSR.

Presumption of repeatability (PR) - By overlooking the possibility of absolute uniqueness,

?
0, s(0), ... are unique.


comp must conceive of all events as locally documented stereotypes of a Platonic template rather than true originals.

"true original" is too much fuzzy.


This contradicts our intuitions

And?



about the proprietary nature of identity

No, this is confirmed, nit contradicted. The first persons too are unique, and non divisible, necessarily so from their perspective.



and would seem to counterfactually predict a very low interest in qualities such as individuality and originality,

Gratuitous opportunistic assertion.


and identification with trivial personal preferences. Of course, what we see the precise opposite, as all celebrity it propelled by some suggestion unrepeatability and the fine tuning of lifestyle choices is arguably the most prolific and successful feature of consumerism.

That is not argument. Looks like propaganda to me.



Presumption of finite simplicities - Because comp provides uniqueness only in the form of the relative scarcity of vastly complex numbers, it can be said to allow for the possibility of novelty only in one direction; that of more quantity. New qualities, by comp, must arise on the event horizons of the UD,

Which is were we live here and now.


yet qualia inherently speaks in a language of rich simplicity instead of cumbersome computables.

That is not an argument.



With comp, there is no new 'one', but in reality, every human experience is exactly that.

Hypothesis:

Diagonalization of the unique - Because computation lags behind experience, no simulation of a brain can catch up to what a natural person can be,

?



since the potential for their uniqueness is immeasurable and unprecedented. Also, nothing can be copied before it is unique,

?


so PIP flips the presumption of repeatability (PR) so that all novelty exists as an absolutely new simplicity as well as a relatively new complexity, such that the continuum of novelty extends in both directions.

The false dichotomy posed by comp in which we are forced to choose between the truth of Church-Turing and the existence of an infinitely low level of substitution for human personhood is exposed because under PIP, computation is a public repetition of what is irreducibly unrepeatable and private. Computation can never get ahead of experience, because computation is an a posteriori measurement of it.

The computer model of what an athlete will do on the field that is based on their past performance will always fail to account for the possibility that the next performance will be the first time that athlete does something that they never have done before. Natural identities are not only self-diagonalizing, natural identity itself is self-diagonalization. The emergence of the unique always cheats prediction, since all prediction belongs to the measurements of an expired world which did not yet contain the next novelty.

?



Pushing UD - My admittedly limited understanding of UDA gives me a picture of the UD as a program which pulls the experienced universe behind it as it extends the computed realm ahead of local appearances. It assumes a priori arithmetic truth which simply 'is' which produces the future from a fixed past.

?



All phenomena are built bottom up from generic, interchangeable bits. The hypothesis under PIP is that awareness is pushing the UD, not being pulled by it. Each new number is the residue of an unprecedented experience as it decays from immeasurable private qualia into quantifiable public reflections. Every measure requires a ruler. Some example which is presented as an index for comparison. A "new Michael Jordan". A third world war. The uniqueness comes first, and the computability follows - fudging and filling as necessary, including ways which could be interpreted as supernatural (retrocausational discontinuities, mysterious lucky coincidences, etc).

?

Hmm...

You write too well, and that does not help you. It looks like bad politics. Your approach avoids the problems by deeming them as not solvable at any level. This kills at the start all possibility of progressing. *all* your sentences needs a lot of clarification and justification.

Bruno





--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to