I must admit I'm more likely to say "yes" if the Doctor in question is Matt Smith :)
On 14 December 2013 11:09, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> > OK, cool. > > > >> >> >> Could not just finite portions of some universe be simulated, that which >> 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). >> >> > I suspect that Yes Doctor is a cheat. It assumes a plurality of minds that > share a common "reality" in order to define a level of substitution. I > think that the commonality *is* the physical reality and that the ability > replacing parts is merely the side effect. > We agree that there is no primitive "material world", we disagree that > there is a primitive "mathematical world". Arithmetic realism is not > neutral monism as I see things. > > > >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> > My apologies. I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth". My comment about > a "god's eye view" was not aimed at you. I simply find the very idea of a > "god's eye view" and its related Laplacean material Universe to be absurd > and contradicted by facts. > > > >> 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). >> > > Sure! I concur, but I suspect that this view is a bit too "Platonic". > >> >> >> BTW, David Albert's argument against the narratability of the universe is >> a very strong case against any concept of a "god's eye view", 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. >> > > Ah, I do often confuse these two. yes, thank you for the correction. > > > >> >> 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. >> > > I agree! I wish more people understood that, Bruno! It is a very deep and > important result! > > > >> >> 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". >> > > > I just hope some day you might develop a logic of concurrent interactions > between pairs of "computations going through an observer's comp state". > > > >> >> >> 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 state of >>> the entire (quantum observable) state of the entire local cluster of >>> galaxies, (including dark matter!) and all this at the level of the "right" >>> fields, or at the level of elementary strings and branes, and this with >>> 10^(10^10) decimals. Use the Schroedinger picture if you prefer. No >>> collapse! >>> >>> >>> But in this case the doctor doing the substitution is included in the >>> substitution. I think this produces a contradiction. >>> >>> >>> That happens all the time with universal machines. They can simulate >>> another machine simulating themselves, and the UD brought this in the >>> picture. With the phi_i and the W_i, many apparent contradictions are >>> resolved through the fact that we are confronted with non stopping machines. >>> >>> Of course, as I said, it would make the thought experience difficult, >>> for no reason, in the first six steps. >>> In this list, the first presentation of the UD was a presentation in 15 >>> steps, where I made explicit the neuro-high level assumption used in "step >>> 1-6" and show explicitly at "step 7" how the UD* (the complete running of >>> the UD) discharge that assumption. >>> >>> The mathematical reason why we escape the contradiction is related to >>> the closure of diagonalization, and to Kleene's second recursion theorem, >>> which allows machine to invoke machines invoking them. It is 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 Bp and Bp & >>> p, etc.), and protect the whole machine's theology, by splitting the >>> communicable part from the non communicable one. Mathematical logic >>> distinguish also what is expressible by the machine, 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 completely circular >>> way. We cannot impeach it to dig in the absurd, once it is computable. That >>> would be like trying to eliminate the number 13 from the integers. >>> >>> Obviously, if the level is so low you need to simulate the entire >>> universal wave, in practice you will say NO to the doctor, but at step >>> seven, even if the level is that low, the main consequences remain >>> unchanged. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > > Kindest Regards, > > Stephen Paul King > > Senior Researcher > > Mobile: (864) 567-3099 > > [email protected] > > http://www.provensecure.us/ > > > “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of > the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately.” > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
