On 06 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:

## Advertising

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:Dear Stephen, On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:21, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, I do not understand something. OK. (good!) Your ideaIt is not an idea, but a result in an hypothetical context (ortheoreticalcontext).seems to me to be a very sophisticated and yat sneaky way ofreintroducingNewton/Laplacean absolute time and/or Leibnitz' Pre-establishedHarmony.It is only a remind of elementary arithmetic. The music 0, s0, ss0,sss0,ssss0, sssss0, ssssss0, sssssss0, ...You can see it as an elementary block digital time. If you want.And thenall other times are relative indexicals, including the physical and subjective times.Bruno, I think I (perhaps naively) understand what you mean. My understanding is that, if comp is true, then the relationship between comp and the physical laws we observe is not a simple one. Even QM would be at a high level of abstraction in relation to raw reality. In this case, the recursive definition of integers would be the simplest possible expression of a fundamental building block that is responsible for time -- although the time we experience is a much more complex phenomena. It makes sense to me that time is strongly related to recursivity (maybe because of a CS background). I imagine moments being "copied forward" and changed in some fashion. Would you agree with these intuitions?

`Yes. But recursivity relies on the ordering 0, s0, ss0, ... which is`

`admitted in the axioms, and so is a notion of time more primitive than`

`the recursive definition by themselves.`

`Another notion of time, which is still rather primitive is the time`

`step of the computations implemented by the UD (or arithmetic) like the`

`phi_344(76)^1, phi_344(76)^2, phi_344(76)^3, phi_344(76)^4,`

`phi_344(76)^5, phi_344(76)^6, phi_344(76)^7, ... (with phi_i(j)-n =`

`the nth step of the computation of program i on input j. It is`

`different from the UD steps, because the UD dovetails, and can execute`

`billions of steps between phi_344(76)^6 and phi_344(76)^7 for example.`

`But those times have no direct link with the "observed time" from`

`inside, which emerges from the logic of the first person points of`

`view. The logic of Bp & p, and Bp & Dt & p, have some canonical`

`temporal significations. Your time is eventually defined by the set`

`of your continuation. It can happen that phi_i(j)^n is lived by you`

`statistically after some phi_i(j)^m with m < n, a priori.`

Bruno

I recall reading how much Einstein himself loved the idea and wasloath togive it up, thus motivating his quest for a classical grand unifiedfieldtheory. Physics has moved on...After Aristotle Physics has also moved on ... I think Einstein wasright onQM, and wrong on GR, in the sense that GR has to be justified by thequantum, before, perhaps justifying the quantum by the "digitalseen frominside". You recently wrote:"The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is thesuccessorrelation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time,as it isonly the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it isgiven bythe standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically,of theadditive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of thenumbers (orany object-of-talk of a universal numbers).That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don'tattributeconsciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1palas) pointagainst this)." Let me try to clarify how I am confused by this claim. OK. How many different versions of the integers "exist"?AFAIK, there can be only One and it is this *One* that acts as the"time"(maybe) in your argument for all other "strings" of integers. ?I have no clue what you are talking about. I am talking about theusual,standard, finite and non negative integers, also known as naturalnumbers.I am not doing philosophy, so any problem you might have with thismightcomes from unecessary over-interpretation you make, over what youhave beensupposed to have learned in high school. Are the "strings" distorted and/or incomplete "shadows" of the One? Are we permitted to use the allegory of the cave here? :-)Yes, but you need to do the work to understand the "real thing". Westartfrom arithmetic, that is: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x or even just Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) ((K x) y) = x (((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z)) And we stay in that theory. In that theory we define the observer by a believer in the axioms: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+xtogether with the infinity of beliefs in the following inductionaxioms(with F any formula in logic + {0, s, +, *}): (F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x)Just that is already very long to do, but that is done in theliterature andis basically the "known" arithmetization of meta-arithmetic. Then incompleteness entails the nuances between proof and truth, andconsistency, and the double completeness theorem of Solovayprovides the 8hypostases, and we see that the classical introspecting machines canunderstand by herself that what she observe might be only theshadow of thetruth. Indeed.How many "shadows" are there and how are they "distinguished" fromeachother such that the notion of a computation is not lost? By the study of the degrees of unsolvability. Notably.In my work I have found that theoreticians in computer sciencecompletelytake for granted that a computation is a process that can onlyoccur in theabsence of randomness. That is well studied. It is computability relativized to oracles. Computability on random oracle has been studied.Imagine if the atoms making up the CPU of your computer where tosuddenlystart changing their positions and states due to outsideinteractions in arandom/uncontrolled way?That happens when I smoke a psychotropic plant, if not when Ibreath thepolluted air. No computation would occur! Let us not exaggerate. No need to smoke the grass of Fukushima.In fact, this is the situation that we find when, for instance, thecoolerfan fails and the CPU overheats.Yes. The hypostases might be used to study the 1p associated tosuch extremeevents. Would this give a NDE? Difficult questions, which needs some technical progresses.My point here is that the string of states that is a von Neumanncomputationvon Neumann, Babbage, Turing, Church, Conway, Post, McCarthy, etc.OK.is something that has to be separable and/or isolated to be able tobe saidto "occur" or -to use the Platonic metaphor- "exist". We start from the "E" interpreted in the usual way, like in "16 has a successor".And gives 8 different notion of existences, in the eight hypostases(whichare each a mathematics with an intensional arithmeticalinterpretation).You get physics when you restrict the arithmetical interpretationon thesigma_1 sentences, on the material hypostases.So, what exactly is separating the "strings of integers" from eachother andthe One, such that we can coherently discuss them as actually being computations and not just "representations of computations"? The trueness of their relative association, together with theirredundancies. At the bottom, what do the separation are theadditions andmultiplication, they separate the computations which halt fromthose whodoes not halt, the first person views do the rest. Hope this helps. Best, Bruno -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King --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 anemail 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 the GoogleGroups"Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send anemail 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.--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.