Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.

Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which "cohere enough" (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of comp? That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical realities. If it does not do that, what good is it? Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc. Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > Bruno Marchal > via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1311182&ctx=mail> > googlegroups.com > 4:53 AM (2 hours ago) > to everything-list > On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse. > > > > How? > > Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau > compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of > the fine structure constant across the visible universe. > > > The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive > it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. > > > > > > >It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot > be the case if our > > > >(generalized) brain is computable. > > Richard: That does not make sense. > > > > If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever will > happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the state S > (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an infinite and > non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain is not > computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations (like the > one done by the UD). > Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You > need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any > special knowledge. > It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in > mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable (by > universal machine) strictly included in truth. > Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical > truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this > needs a bit of theoretical computer science). > > Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we > can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. > machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which > "cohere enough" (to be short). > If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate > into physical realities, then comp is wrong. > > By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the > true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are > provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such > accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all > p sigma_1 (= "ExP(x") for some P decidable arithmetical formula) > beweisbar('p') & ~beweisbar('~p') & p. The operator for that, let us write > it "[]", provides a quantum logic, by the application of "[]<>p". This > gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively > deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are > and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our > substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non > computable, indeterminate. > > In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which GĂ¶del said > only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The question > was "would there be a relationship between incompleteness and Heisenberg > uncertainties?" > > There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from > incompleteness, as that would be indecent indeed, but assuming comp and > understanding the FPI, you can intuit why the fuzziness has to emerge from > inside the digital/arithmetic, below or at our substitution level, and the > math of self-reference gives a quick way to get the propositional logic of > that "universal physics" (deducible by all correct computationalist UMs). > > And there is the Solovay gifts, which are theorems which show that > incompleteness split those logics,. That is useful for distinguishing the > true part of that physics from the part that the machine can (still > introspectively) deduces. Some intensional nuances, like the "[]" above, > inherit the split, some like the Bp & p does not, and facts of that type > can help to delineate the quanta from the qualia, but also the terrestrial > (temporal) from the divine (atemporal). > > Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes > elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of > view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system > chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc. > > Comp suggests to extend Everett on the universal quantum wave on > arithmetic and the universal machines dreams. The wavy aspect being > explained by the self-embedding in arithmetic. Comp entails a sort of > self-diffraction. > > No problem trying to get the fundamental physics from observation, and > indeed that will help for the comparison. The approach here keep the 1/p > 3/p distinctions all along, and in that sense proposes a new formulation, > and ways to consider, the mind-body problem (in which I am interested and > is the main motivation for interviewing the antic, the contemporaries and > the universal numbers :) > > > Bruno > > > 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.