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 <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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 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 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
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  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 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.

Reply via email to