# Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

```
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:```
```
```
```Dear Bruno,

```
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
```
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:

```
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com > wrote:
```Computed how? By what?

```
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- "He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via arithmetical realism as an abstract, immaterial computation."
```
```
Assuming comp, there is not much choice in the matter. That is the point.
```
I will agree.

```
Above the substitution level: interaction between universal machines, including one apparently sustained from below the substitution level by the statistical interference between infinities of universal machines getting your actual states.
```
```
But the "actual states" are not just some random string from my point of view!
```

```
Nor for me. They are state brought by some computation above the S- level, and supported by infinitely many computation below the S-level. The result is indeterminate, but not itself random. In The WM- duplication, the result is indeterminate or random, but W or M themselves are not random.
```

```
The very fact that we can (somewhat) communicate is an important fact. There is a selection mechanism: interaction.
```
That's part of the problem. Showing this.

```
```

```
I don't know how to avoid those infinities without reifying some God- of-the-gap or Matter-of-the-gap notion to singularize a computation for consciousness, but if that is needed for consciousness, then comp is false.
```
```
Umm, that is a false choice! The FPI is good enough to "do the job" without resorting to a 'god/matter in the gap" solution. The singularization of consciousness is easy, as you have shown.
```
```
No it is not! There is a lot of work to be done before we have a realm in which words like "interaction" can make sense.
```

```
```It is the concurrent interaction problem that is not easy.
```
```
So let us concentrate on what is more easy first.

```
I cannot exactly predict your actions and thus can only "bet" on your future states, but I can constrain your possible choices of action with my physical behaviors even if the physical world is an illusion. The fact that it is a common and persistent illusion makes it a ground of commonality from which we can distinguish ourselves 3- p wise from each other.
```
We cannot use physics.

```
```

```
True, you still survive with a digital brain, but no more through comp, it is true from comp + some explicit magic to make disappear the other realities. You get an irrefutable form of cosmic solipsism.
```
```
There is no magic here, there is the SAT problem. Boolean algebras do not automatically pop out with global consistency over their arguments/propositions. One has to actually physically "run" a physical world to know what it will do. Claiming that it exists in Platonia is not a solution.
```
```
No, it is a problem. And thanks to the work done, it is (with comp) a problem in arithmetic. That is the result.
```
Bruno

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