On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:

## Advertising

Hi Bruno, Why does an entire universe need to be simulated?

?

`If "I" (third person self-reference) is Turing emulable, then the`

`"entire universe" is certainly not emulable, nor even well definable.`

Could not just finite portions of some universe be simulated, thatwhich is perceived by the "observers" (however such might be defined).

`Yes, that is what the UD does, all computations going through your`

`comp state, below (and above) your substitution level. The "physical`

`universe" is an epistemological relative (indexical) view from inside,`

`and the FPI makes it a priori not computable, below the substitution`

`level.`

`Keep in mind I only translate a problem in arithmetic. That is a`

`"miracle" made possible by the conjunction of the Church-Post-Turing`

`thesis and the "yes doctor" bet/assumption. (You know the details).`

Why does it seem that a "god's eye view needs to be simulated?

`Stephen, you make me anxious. I have never said such a ridiculous`

`thing. Even a first person point of view of a machine, cannot be`

`simulated or even defined by that machine, or other machines.`

`The "ONE" of comp is Arithmetical Truth (or the set of Gödel numbers`

`of true arithmetical sentences). That is not Turing emulable at all.`

`Arithmetical truth is the union of all sigma_i, all pi_i, sentences,`

`and that's the "God" of the machine (in a first approximation, in the`

`meta-theology of simple machines).`

`The simulable = the sigma_1 truth = the universal machine (a finite`

`being) = the "man" (Plotinus) = us (in our local terrestrial context`

`or relative universal machines (and that follows from the assumption).`

BTW, David Albert's argument against the narratability of theuniverse is a very strong case against any concept of a "god's eyeview", IMHO.

`For a "physical universe appearance" that is an easy consequence of`

`computationalism. If Albert derives this from QM, that confirms the`

`type of thing a universe can be with computationalism.`

`Don't confuse arithmetical, and computable. The computable is the tiny`

`sigma_1 part of the arithmetical (which contains the pi_1, sigma_2,`

`etc. sentences.`

`Many machine's attribute are not computable, especially her relation`

`with "Truth", which are quite NOT computable, and physics inherit some`

`of those non computable parts. (a priori too many, reducing the mind`

`body problem in an arithmetical justification of physics problem).`

Keep in mind:

`sigma_1 truth = simulable = equivalent to proving a sigma_1 sentence`

`EnP(n) in RA or in any universal system.`

`Arithmetical-truth is the much vaster set union of all sigma_i and`

`pi_i. It contains very complex sentences, like a Pi_3 sentence`

`AxEyAzP(x, y, z).`

`The Riemann hypothesis is only Pi_1, that is a negation of a sigma_1`

`sentence, they have the shape AxP(x), with P decidable.`

`For any correct Löbian machine his consistency (or existence of a`

`model/reality), that is Dt, or <> t, is a true pi_1 sentence, yet`

`unprovable by the machine.`

`No worry, the "god" of the machine is not Turing emulable, God's eyes`

`is not Turing emulable, not computable.`

`And the complete "Noùs", the second hypostases (with the quantified`

`modal logic), qG*, is worse. Even God cannot emulate it.`

`At the propositional level, yet, by Solovay, those theories are`

`decidable, even about the undecidable. G cannot prove Dt reflects that`

`the correct machine cannot prove its consistency, and G* (decidable,`

`even nicely representable in G) proves Dt, and all similar unprovable`

`propositions. They are trivial for us because the little machine is`

`kept simple and rational. The result is "irreversible" or "essential",`

`in the sense it will remain true for any effective or mechanical`

`extension of the machine.`

`The arithmetical clothes of B can change and develop, but as long as`

`the machine keep self-referential correctness, its science will obey`

`G, and its theology will obey G*, and its soul obey S4Grz. (and the`

`three physics are qS4Grz1, qZ1*, qX1*"`

`where in Z: []p = Bp & Dt. In X, []p = Bp & Dt & p. And "1" means we`

`add "p -> Bp" to G, to restrict the atomic sentences to the computable".`

Bruno

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:39:33 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2013, at 19:06, meekerdb wrote:On 12/12/2013 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:2) the lower level: the description of the Heisenberg matrix stateof the entire (quantum observable) state of the entire localcluster of galaxies, (including dark matter!) and all this at thelevel of the "right" fields, or at the level of elementary stringsand branes, and this with 10^(10^10) decimals. Use theSchroedinger picture if you prefer. No collapse!But in this case the doctor doing the substitution is included inthe substitution. I think this produces a contradiction.That happens all the time with universal machines. They can simulateanother machine simulating themselves, and the UD brought this inthe picture. With the phi_i and the W_i, many apparentcontradictions are resolved through the fact that we are confrontedwith non stopping machines.Of course, as I said, it would make the thought experiencedifficult, for no reason, in the first six steps.In this list, the first presentation of the UD was a presentation in15 steps, where I made explicit the neuro-high level assumption usedin "step 1-6" and show explicitly at "step 7" how the UD* (thecomplete running of the UD) discharge that assumption.The mathematical reason why we escape the contradiction is relatedto the closure of diagonalization, and to Kleene's second recursiontheorem, which allows machine to invoke machines invoking them. Itis standard in theoretical computer science.Judson Webb explains well how Gödel's theorem protect Church thesis,which protect mechanism. In fact Gödel's theorem and the whole of G*-G, create the points of view (by the machine distinction between Bpand Bp & p, etc.), and protect the whole machine's theology, bysplitting the communicable part from the non communicable one.Mathematical logic distinguish also what is expressible by themachine, and what is not expressible, yet "known" or produces as"true" in many possible ways.The UD even run dreams in dreams in dreams .... in a completelycircular way. We cannot impeach it to dig in the absurd, once it iscomputable. That would be like trying to eliminate the number 13from the integers.Obviously, if the level is so low you need to simulate the entireuniversal wave, in practice you will say NO to the doctor, but atstep seven, even if the level is that low, the main consequencesremain unchanged.BrunoBrent --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-li...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 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.