On 24 Oct 2013, at 12:58, Richard Ruquist wrote:

How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe oflimited bits of information.

`A computation is a concept in arithmetic. There exist infinitely many`

`computations for reason similar as the fact that there exist`

`infinitely many prime number.`

`Then the UDA reasoning (notably step 8, + weak Occam) explains that to`

`predict any physical events "correctly", once we assume we are turing`

`emulable, we have to sum on the infinitely many compuations going`

`through our states.`

`So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming`

`more than numbers and the + and * laws.`

`So any consideration on the size of the physical universe is`

`irrelevant. In comp, the size of the universe is an open problem.`

Bruno

For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits,the so-called Lloyd Limit.On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux<allco...@gmail.com> wrote:2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno MarchalSent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classicalliquids...On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote:From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno MarchalSent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classicalliquids...On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is thatdefinitive -granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside "fundamental" particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space isbettercompared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35.So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent withFermigamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different inenergyarrived from across the universe at the same time whereasgranularity woulddelay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being somethingphysical "out there". It is something Allen Francom bangs on abouttoo,which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models.>>Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, butquantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described bysome continuum aI0> + bI1> (a and b complex).The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classicgranularity of space time with the scale this granularity would needto be under being pushed far below the Planck scale.>>The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but thephysical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuousobservable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that*only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to saythose are open problems).>>I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule outgranularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems toplay a role in physics (which should be a first person pluraluniversal machines view).BrunoIf reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is noneed for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressablechunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected asit were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed>>... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking,so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when someinconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists,and it might be that physical reality is ever growing.have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine,the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on allcomputations (which exist in arithmetic)?Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – touse an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) –may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enoughin order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer isconcerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also alongthe time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these – whatwould they be called?... reality paradox reconciliation algorithmsperhaps -- re-write and “fix” transient paradoxes, loose ends etc.in order to produce, at least on the observer’s macro scale, thesmooth perception of rock solid causality.And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causalitycontinues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned atleast) then causality can be said to be operative…. Even if it needsto get fixed up on the fly as reality manifests becoming observedreality, as long as at the functional level its Laws stand then itwould seem to all still work out.This also fits with the mind-bending quantum scale universe –wormholes, backwards vectors of time and the foaming sea of virtualparticle pairs popping in and out of our universe – at thefemtoscale it all seems very chaotic and non-casual (at least in thesimple linear manner we experience causality and the flow of time)>>>>so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it wouldemerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could beachieved. If reality is information and information can be describedwith equations that are scale invariant (such as for example vectorgraphics versus pixel based graphics, or fractal geometry) then acomputational model can still describe the entire universalrelationship and identity sets even when there is seemingly no end(that we have found) to how small a point of spacetime can be.OK. But computationalism ("I am a machine) entails the existence ofat least one observable which relies on real numbers" and is notcompletely turing emulable. It might be the quantum frequencyoperator (describe well by Graham and Preskill's course).One could say that “I” cannot know itself without some outsideperspective upon which to reflect its being and by which to measureit. Can a pure I – i.e. singularity – know anything about itself,even that it exists, without introducing some outside perspective? Ifind that hard to conceive of.I am not so sure about the assumption that that outside perspectiveis not itself also a computational thread of reality manifest andthat both the observer and the outside thing that enables theobserver to have something against which to observe are not boththemselves – non-communicating – elements of some larger equation/model/dataset. The observer element is unaware that the observableelement (which is also unaware of any super-connection) and itselfare member elements of some super-model…And so on and so forth…. This leads to a hall of mirrors, of an ever-receding infinite series of ever larger supersets…. To which bothobserver and observable belong unbeknown to each other… and so onand so forth for each super set in turn and the set of everythingthat is observable by it yet is experienced as being external to it,by it.Clearly not satisfactory or ideal. Perhaps on some basic level theuniverse is a circular queue lol.It seems to me that all that is strictly necessary is for theobserver to be convinced that the observable is fundamentallyexternal to the universe of things it considers to be itself (andsymmetrically so for the observable, which may act as actor indifferent roles)As long as this condition is satisfied then the observer and theobservable are free to act as if one was truly external to theother, even if at some super-level they are in in fact lower levelelements of some superset and transcendental model that encompassesthem both (and which leads to a hall of mirrors, unless we can admitthe possibility of a circular queue so astronomically huge that theserpent head will never ever know that it is actually eating its owntail. )>>>>So long as this does not much matter to the computational theoryitself then it is unaffected by this very fine grained measurementof the lack of any fine structure in spacetime.Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalisthypothesis in "philosophy of mind", and 2) the hypothesis that theuniverse is the product of some program.2) implies 1) but1) implies the negation of 2) (this can be explained with thethought experiment like in the UDA).In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-contradictory.Bruno You lost me here… why does 1) negate 2)?Because 1 implies matter is the result of an infinity ofcomputations below the substitution level (there is an infinity ofcomputations going through your current state). 2 implies matter isthe result of one specific computation. 2 implies 1, 1 implies ~2 =>2 => ~2.QuentinIs it because 1) requires some external observable that is not apart of itselfAs seems suggested by saying 2) implies the negation of 2)Which would be the hall of mirrors of the observing entity requiringan external observable in order to even know it exists. Unlesssomething could be perfectly self-referential, which I sense youdoubt.perhaps just the sound of me flailing around J Chris http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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 GoogleGroups "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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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 GoogleGroups "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.