On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional.

Richard: Wow. This contradicts everything I have ever though Bruno was claiming. How does anything exist if it is not computed by "the" or "a" machine?

We assume the arithmetical truth. In particular we assume that all closed formula written in the language of arithmetic (and thus using logical symbol + the symbol 0, s (+1), + and *) are all either true or false, independently of us.

From this we cannot prove that matter exists, or not, but we can prove that the average universal numbers will (correctly) believe in matter (but it will not know that it is correct).

So, if you have no problem in believing propositions like "there is no biggest prime number" are true independently of me and you, and the universe, then you can understand that the proposition asserting the existence of (infinitely many) computations in which you believe reading my current post, is also true independently of us.

The appearance of matter emerges from the FPI that the machines cannot avoid in the arithmetical truth.

Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth (by Gödel).





And I thought the generalized brain did the computations,

Only the computations associated to your mind.


not that it was only computed. How does Bruno show that "all the rest" which presumably includes energy and matter is not computed. Bruno is constantly confusing me.

I guess you missed the step seven of the UDA, and are perhaps not aware that arithmetical truth is incredibly big, *much* bigger than what any computer can generate or compute.

Then my, or your, mind is associated to *all* computations going through your actual state of mind, and below your substitution level there are infinitely many such computations. They all exist in arithmetic, and the FPI glues them, in a non computable way, in possible long and deep physical histories.

Bruno





On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 14 Oct 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:

So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement, or do infinitely many come into existence in order that some branch-counting measure produces the right proportion? Do you not see any problems with assigning a measure to infinite countable subsets (are there more even numbers that square numbers?).

And why should we prefer this model to simply saying the Born rule derives from a Bayesian epistemic view of QM as argued by, for example, Chris Fuchs?

If you can explain to me how this makes the parallel "experiences", (then), disappearing, please do.

I don't understand the question. What parallel experiences do you refer to? And you're asking why they disappeared?

The question is "how does Fuchs prevent a superposition to be contagious on the observer"

I think he takes an instrumentalist view of the wave function - so superpositions are just something that happens in the mathematics.

But then I don't see how this could fit with even just the one photon interference in the two slits experiment.

?? The math predicts probabilities of events, including where a single photon will land in a Young's slit experiment - no superposition of observer required.


But it illustrates that superposition is physical/real, not purely mathematical. Then linearity expands it to us.












When I read Fuchs I thought this: Comp suggest a compromise: yes the "quantum wave" describes only psychological states, but they concern still a *many* dreams/worlds/physical- realities, including the many self-multiplication.

There is no "many" in Fuchs interpretation, there is only the personal subjective probabilities of contemplated futures.

I notice the plural of "futures". Are those not "many"?

Sure, but they are contemplated, not reified.

OK. But apparently object of contemplation can interfere with the real, which is a bit weird to me.

The 'interference' is a calculational event 'between' possible futures. Or even the result of considering all possible paths.

That leads to instrumentalism. That is "don"t ask, don't try to understand or get a bigger picture".







I know Fuchs criticize Everett, but I don't see how he makes the superposition disappearing. he only makes them psychological, which is not a problem for me. there are still "many".


Yes, that's why I said I think his approach is consistent with yours. I think Fuchs view of QM is similar to what William S. Cooper calls for at the end of his book "The Evolution of Reason" - a probabilistic extension of logic. This is essentially the view he defends at length in "Interview with a Quantum Bayesian", arXiv:1207.2141v1

OK.









It is still Everett wave as seen from inside.

We just don't know if the dreams defined an unique (multiversal) physical reality. Neither in Everett +GR, nor in comp.

Bayesian epistemic view is no problem, but you have to define what is the knower, the observer, etc. If not, it falls into a cosmic form of solipsism, and it can generate some strong "don't ask" imperative.

You assume that if others are not explained they must be rejected.

I just ask for an explanation of the terms that they introduce.


I think he takes the observer as primitive and undefined (and I think you do the same).


What? Not at all. the observer is defined by its set of beliefs, itself define by a relative universal numbers.

Fuchs defines 'the observer' as the one who bets on the outcome of his actions.

Comp has a pretty well defined notion of observer, with its octalist points of view, and an whole theology including his physics, etc.






Physicists, like Fuchs, and unlike philosophers, are generally comfortable with not explaining everything.

Me too. but he has still to explain the terms that he is using.

What's your explanation for the existence of persons? So far what I've heard is that it's an inside view of arithmetic - which I don't find very enlightening.

What do you miss in the UDA?

As I understand it the UD computes everything computable and it's only your inference that observers (and the rest of the multiverse) *must be in there somewhere* because you've assumed that everything is computable.


On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional.






Fuchs, correctly I think, says an 'interpretation' of a theory, the story that goes along with the mathematics, is important insofar as it gives you insight into how to apply the mathematics and to extend your theories. He is critical of Everett's MWI for not doing that, or at least not doing it well.

Well, perhaps Fuchs is a bit out of topic, once you agree that it is only Everett in a psychological version.

It's kinda funny to see "only...psychological" from a guy who wants to show that everything is a shared dream.

I said that just to say that comp is both on Fuchs' side, and on Everett's side.



That is close to comp. But comp leads, by UDA, that the theory of everuthing is just elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent, like colmbinatirs, ...). Then everything is defined in a very precise way in that theory.

Is it? What's an electron then? What's John K. Clark? I don't see that these things are defined *in that theory* at all.

?
This is a consequence of already the step seven. Of course a question like "what is an electron" remains an open problem, but we know the shape of the answer: an electron is a relatively stable information pattern in the FPI of all universal numbers.

Bruno




Brent

And this explains both 100% matter and 99,999... % of consciousness. The explanation might be false, of course, but is testable.

Bruno




Brent


Bruno




Brent
"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."
    --- Fredrick Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols"

--
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/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6742 - Release Date: 10/11/13

--
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.


--
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/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6742 - Release Date: 10/11/13

--
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.


--
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- l...@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.


--
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