On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this work?

In the UDA we assume a "Turing universal", or "sigma_1-complete" physical reality, in some local sense.

Could this "Turing universal/sigma_1-complete in a local sense" be the exact criteria required to define the observations 3-experiences of individuals or is it the 1-experiences of individuals (observers) in keeping with the definition of an observer as the intersection of infinitely many computations?

I think the UDA answers this question. You need Turing universality, but also the FPI, which in some sense comes from mechanism, but not necessarily "universality", which has, here, only an indirect relevance in the definition of what is a computation in arithmetic.

We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical reality). Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp, we are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that such "primitiveness" cannot solve the mind-body problem when made into a dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness.

It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of "other minds".

UDA formulates the problem, and show how big the mind-body problem is, even before tackling the "other minds" problem. But something is said. In fact it is easy to derive from the UDA the following assertions:

comp + explicit non-solipsism entails sharable many words or a core linear physical reality.

But comp in fact has to justify the non-solipsism, and this is begun through the nuance Bp & p versus Bp & Dt. Normally the linearity should allow the first person plural in the "& Dt" nuance case.

Keep in mind that UDA does not solve the problem, but formulate it. AUDA go more deep in a solution, and the shape of that solution (like UDA actually) provides already information contradicting the Aristotelian theology (used by atheists and the main part of institutionalized abramanic religion).


Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all assumptions above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic).

The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is derived from basically just

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

or just

x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 x *0 = 0
 x*s(y) = x*y + x


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