# Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

```
On 03 Jan 2014, at 19:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:```
```
```
```

```
That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe.
```Is that possible?
```
```
```
The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
```
```
So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).
```
```
That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this).
```
```
Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp & Dt) , know (Bp & p), observe (Bp & Dt & p), feel (Bp & Dt & p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations.
```
```
You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a confusion between two of those "number's points of view". I would even say that the *theological* errors comes from confusion between those points of view, and their "star extension", when translated in G*.
```
```
Incompleteness not only forces the division between truth and provable, captured by the star extensions, but it forbids to the correct or sound machine/numbers to confuse the hypostases.
```
```
Subjective time appears in Bp & p, and in Bp & p & Dt, (and in B^n p & p & D^m t. If n < m, then we get a corresponding quantization, so the arithmetical quantizations are graded, and I hope to find some arithmetical Temperley Algebra there ..., that would be a path in the explanation of some physical space)
```
Physical time? Open problem.

```
The 3p is a block reality, which does not even refer to any notion of time or space, or consciousness, or whatever.
```
```
But from the average 1p discourses of machines relatively implemented (in the computer science sense) in that arithmetical reality, taking into account the FPI (by the "& Dt", actually) and the first person (and its umbilical link with truth, by the "& p") you can see or understand that from inside things are quite dynamical, and full of sense. The consciousness of the sense might be a semantical fixed point. Universal numbers are windows through which the Arithmetical Reality can explore Itself. The price is that it can lost itself and get tricked in infinitely many ways.
```
```
To sum up the 3p reality is certainly a sort of block reality, but the many 1p realities, naturally associated to the 3p arithmetization of meta-arithmetic (Gödel) and its Theaetetus variants (the points of view), are dynamical, and full of qualia (accepting standard properties of them).
```
```
Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality contains an universal 1p-reality itself., which makes not much sense to me though, but if that was the case, the "whole truth" would plausibly be the initial consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness. I am still struggling on this. I made allusion to this with the notion of Galois connection, which exists between theories and models, name and things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p- person, etc.
```
Bruno: Here is where my string cosmology model has an advantage.
```
```
```
It seems to assume a physical reality. But this won't work for the comp mind-body problem. We have to extract physics from computer science, that is Arithmetic.
```

```
```
```
As you know I think the particles of space that precipitate out of 4D-spacetime, are like monads in that they reflect or perceive or are conscious of all other monads (in string theory either because they are a BEC or use r->1/r duality-mapping, or both).
```
```
My hypothesis is that they are also all distinct and perhaps even enumerable, and hypothetically capable of computing the Arithmetic Reality including consciousness, which of course would include a "3p reality [that] contains an universal 1p-reality itself,
```corresponding to your Arithmetic Person.
```
```
```
How do you define a string without assuming arithmetic? It is a bit trivial to extract the simple (addition and multiplication) from the complex (string theory). Assulming comp I am supposed to have shown that we must to the contrary: extract strings, or the right physics, from comp and arithmetic.
```You might need to formalize your approach to see that clearly.

```
```
```
"It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness." which is also an aspect of my string cosmology that makes consciousness more fundamental
```than I believe comp does.

Since Godel required transverse of 57 levels to get his theorems,
```
I conjecture that the simple basic monads form composites and finally Lobian entities at the higher levels.
```
We see that through evolution and biology.

```
You may not be interested, but I presume that you can verify or falsify that conjecture using mathematical logic..
```
```
You might have the right physics, but we can know that only by isolating if from arithmetic, without any further assumption. Advantage: the G/G* distinction explain how to distinguish what the machine can justify rationally, and she can't.
```
Bruno

```
```

```
What is sure, even provable and proved by machines like PA or ZF, is that there are many Löbian entities, much closer to truth than themselves, which might in some circumstances quite well approximate Truth, in a way "faking" all machines. An example is "true in all transitive models of ZF" (a model is transitive if it owns all the elements of its sets). Using comp, and working on simple correct machines, we can extract a lot from mathematical logic.
```
Bruno

```
```Richard
```
```

```
```
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 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.

--
```
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- l...@googlegroups.com.
```Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
```
```
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.

--
```
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.
```
```
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