On 13 Dec 2013, at 23:09, Stephen Paul King 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, thatwhich is perceived by the "observers" (however such might bedefined).Yes, that is what the UD does, all computations going through yourcomp state, below (and above) your substitution level. The "physicaluniverse" is an epistemological relative (indexical) view frominside, and the FPI makes it a priori not computable, below thesubstitution level.Keep in mind I only translate a problem in arithmetic. That is a"miracle" made possible by the conjunction of the Church-Post-Turingthesis and the "yes doctor" bet/assumption. (You know the details).I suspect that Yes Doctor is a cheat. It assumes a plurality ofminds that share a common "reality" in order to define a level ofsubstitution.

`It assumes some doctor and brains/computers. Yes. Where is the cheat`

`about that.`

I think that the commonality *is* the physical reality

Of course it is.

and that the ability replacing parts is merely the side effect.

?

We agree that there is no primitive "material world", we disagreethat there is a primitive "mathematical world".

`"primitive" means "has to be assumed". In a scientific theory on the`

`fundamentals we need to assume something to start with, and all you`

`need to assume (at the end of the UDA, not at the beginning!) is`

`elementary arithmetic (or something Turing-equivalent).`

Arithmetic realism is not neutral monism as I see things.

`But it is with the standard definition. Neither mind nor matter are`

`assumed in the TOE isolated through the UDA. Both are recovered from`

`arithmetic, which is neither mind nor matter, and so comp is neutral`

`monist in the standard sense.`

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 ridiculousthing. Even a first person point of view of a machine, cannot besimulated or even defined by that machine, or other machines.My apologies. I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth".

OK.

My comment about a "god's eye view" was not aimed at you. I simplyfind the very idea of a "god's eye view" and its related Laplaceanmaterial Universe to be absurd and contradicted by facts.

`"God's eye view", or 0th person views, is much more general than`

`Laplace view.`

The "ONE" of comp is Arithmetical Truth (or the set of Gödel numbersof 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, inthe meta-theology of simple machines).The simulable = the sigma_1 truth = the universal machine (a finitebeing) = the "man" (Plotinus) = us (in our local terrestrialcontext or relative universal machines (and that follows from theassumption).Sure! I concur, but I suspect that this view is a bit too "Platonic".

It follows from UDA, AUDA and the standard definition of knowledge (S4).

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 ofcomputationalism. If Albert derives this from QM, that confirms thetype of thing a universe can be with computationalism.Don't confuse arithmetical, and computable. The computable is thetiny 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.

`OK. "Computable" (sigma_1) is very tiny, "arithmetical" is terribly`

`big, and even unnameable from the machine view inside. from inside it`

`obeys the proposition for a God I have given, which included "non`

`computable".`

Many machine's attribute are not computable, especially her relationwith "Truth", which are quite NOT computable, and physics inheritsome of those non computable parts. (a priori too many, reducing themind body problem in an arithmetical justification of physicsproblem).Keep in mind:sigma_1 truth = simulable = equivalent to proving a sigma_1 sentenceEnP(n) in RA or in any universal system.Arithmetical-truth is the much vaster set union of all sigma_i andpi_i. It contains very complex sentences, like a Pi_3 sentenceAxEyAzP(x, y, z).The Riemann hypothesis is only Pi_1, that is a negation of a sigma_1sentence, they have the shape AxP(x), with P decidable.For any correct Löbian machine his consistency (or existence of amodel/reality), that is Dt, or <> t, is a true pi_1 sentence, yetunprovable by the machine.No worry, the "god" of the machine is not Turing emulable, God'seyes is not Turing emulable, not computable.I agree! I wish more people understood that, Bruno! It is a verydeep and important result!

OK. Thanks.

And the complete "Noùs", the second hypostases (with the quantifiedmodal logic), qG*, is worse. Even God cannot emulate it.At the propositional level, yet, by Solovay, those theories aredecidable, even about the undecidable. G cannot prove Dt reflectsthat the correct machine cannot prove its consistency, and G*(decidable, even nicely representable in G) proves Dt, and allsimilar unprovable propositions. They are trivial for us because thelittle machine is kept simple and rational. The result is"irreversible" or "essential", in the sense it will remain true forany effective or mechanical extension of the machine.The arithmetical clothes of B can change and develop, but as long asthe machine keep self-referential correctness, its science will obeyG, and its theology will obey G*, and its soul obey S4Grz. (and thethree physics are qS4Grz1, qZ1*, qX1*"where in Z: []p = Bp & Dt. In X, []p = Bp & Dt & p. And "1" meanswe add "p -> Bp" to G, to restrict the atomic sentences to thecomputable".I just hope some day you might develop a logic of concurrentinteractions between pairs of "computations going through anobserver's comp state".

`I just try to share what has been already proved. Note that the`

`computations we sum up in the FPI usually do not interact at all, like`

`the branches in the Everett wave. They only interfere statistically.`

`Concurrent interactions appears (and defines in Everett) what a world-`

`branch is. Same with comp. But in comp "interaction" is defined`

`trivially by the usual manner in computer science, and "physical`

`interaction" is part of the problem, so we have to solve the open`

`problem brought by AUDA before.`

Bruno

BrunoOn 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 matrixstate of the entire (quantum observable) state of the entirelocal cluster of galaxies, (including dark matter!) and all thisat the level of the "right" fields, or at the level of elementarystrings and 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 cansimulate another machine simulating themselves, and the UD broughtthis in the 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 presentationin 15 steps, where I made explicit the neuro-high level assumptionused in "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 Churchthesis, which protect mechanism. In fact Gödel's theorem and thewhole of G*-G, create the points of view (by the machinedistinction between Bp and Bp & p, etc.), and protect the wholemachine's theology, by splitting the communicable part from the noncommunicable one. Mathematical logic distinguish also what isexpressible 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 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-l...@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 inthe 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 theuse of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and maycontain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or maybe constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,distribution, or copying of this communication is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this message in error, notifysender immediately and delete this message immediately.”--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.