Bruno: Sorry but I do not understood point seven when I read it and I do not understand you now.

## Advertising

I understand Solomonoff theorem about inductive inference that involve infinite computations and probabilities, but Solomonoff has a selection criteria : the algoritmic complexity theorem uses the algorithmic complexity as the weight or probability of each computation and it has a clear formula for the probability of the "next step" in a sequence, that is, to make an induction by means of "competing" computations. The metaphisics of solomonoff say something like: "the world is governed by laws as simple as possible compatible with the phenomena observed, but we must take into account unobserved phenomena that may demand more complex algorithms so we apply a decreasing but not null probability to all computations that predict the known facts" For a moment I though that yours is a kind of solomonoff inductive inference translated into a numerical mysticism, as substance of things instead as a method of induction or discovery of laws. But I do not see your selection criteria among infinite computations and no procedure, no formula. And moreover, I do not understand your metaphysics. 2014/1/9, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>: > > On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:50, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear Bruno, >> >> I have to agree with Alberto on this point. > > > > > Alberto was only missing step seven. You can comment my answer to > Alberto. > > > >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >> wrote: >> >> On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> But the UD argument predict that all the possible universes with all >> possible laws will be produced. >> >> >> Where? >> >> AR does not restrict the types of physical laws of universes that it >> can represent, so barring a separate mechanism I cannot see how >> Alberto's claim is false! > > See my answer to Alberto, or reread the UDA. > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> What is what makes our physical laws >> "unique determined" by COMP?' >> >> That happens already at the step seven. >> >> Could you be more specific as to how? >> >> >> >> I assume there that you, here and now, live in a physical universe >> which run a universal dovetailer, without ever stopping. >> >> Assuming comp, how do you predict "exactly", after step six, the >> experience of dropping a pen in the air? >> What is the probability that you will see falling on the ground? >> >> I think that Alberto is considering the character of physical laws, >> not probability distributions of particular processes that obey such >> laws. > > It is computation. that are not physical processes at all. > > To avoid the consequence that physics is uniquely defined in > arithmetic for all universal machine, you need to reify matter and > mind with non computable attributes. > > > > > >> >> >> >> You believe (because you assume comp and agreed up to step 6) that >> your next immediate future first person state is determined by the >> FPI on all the emulations of your actual states appearing in the UD* >> (the complete execution of the UD). This involves infinitely many >> computations (that should be an easy exercise in computer science: >> all functions are implemented by infinitely many programs). >> To compute the exact probability of the event "the "pen fall on the >> ground", you must seek the ratio or proportion of all computation >> going through your states where you see the pen falling on the >> grounds, among all computations going through your states. >> >> How can we generate probability distributions unless there is an >> unambiguous measure on the space of possible universes that can >> obtain from the infinitely many computations? > > Exactly! probabilities exists only if there is a non ambiguous > measure. So if comp is true, and if this does not make the moon > evaporating, it means the measure exists. > > I also give the math of the "measure one". The logic of the "certainty > case", and it is a quantum logic. > > > >> >> >> >> Computations is an arithmetical notion, and your actual state is >> given by a relative number, encode locally by the doctor. The entire >> UD is itself definable in arithmetic. So, in that step seven, if >> comp is correct or believed by a rational agent, the rational agent >> had to believe that physics, all physical predictions, is reduced to >> one "simple law": basically a measure on the relative computations. >> Physics has been reduced, in principle (of course) to a statistical >> sum on all first person valid relative computations. >> >> >> It has always been my claim that the Doctor can only exist within >> some subset of universes that have persistence of matter. > > Then you can deduce from the UDA that comp is incompatible with your > theory. > > > > >> This would exclude, for example, universes that do not contain >> matter or do not persist for more than an instant. AFAIK, nothing in >> AR acts to partition up the universes into those that contain >> Doctors and those that do not. > > Define "universe" in the comp theory. > > > > >> >> >> >> Below our substitution level, physics is not given by "one >> computation" (or one universal numbers). Physics is given by an >> infinity made of almost all computations. It involves a competition >> among all universal numbers. "Almost all" means all those validating >> your first person experience. >> >> Yes, but not just one "physics"! The level of substitution is itself >> induced by and emergent from physical laws, > > Reread step seven. > > > > >> thus cannot be assumed prior to the mechanism that selects for >> particular physical laws. > > You are assuming a physical primitive universe. I do not. I am > agnostic on this. But don't add an assumption in a reasoning, that is > terribly confusing. > > If you understand the reasoning, and still assume a physical primitive > universe, then comp is non valid in your theory. You have to say no to > the digitalist doctor. > > > >> >> >> Then the math shows that the case of "probability one", for that >> statistics on first person valid computations obeys a quantum logic. >> >> Not necessarily! It only shows FPI. > > ? > > > > >> There are many "quantum logics". Which one are you considering? > > The one isolated in the UDA and AUDA. I get three of them, actually. > > > >> I would like to see how you obtain the general non-commutativity of >> observable operators from AR. >> It has always seemed to me that you assume that physics is >> classical and this has always bothered me, given that we have very >> good evidence that our common universe IS NOT Classical. > > I have never assumed physics to be classical. You should read the > text. On the contrary I show how much comp makes the physical reality > quantum like, both in UDA and in arithmetic (AUDA). > > > > >> >> >> >> In fact comp gives a criteria to distinguish geography (which >> depends on many indexicals) and physics, which appears to be >> indexical independent. Physics is even independent of the choice of >> the base of the phi_i. >> >> How? What does it depend on? Maybe I do not know your definition of >> "physics"... > > > The science of justifying the sharable events in our neighborhood, or > the science of the "3p" measurable number predictions (which actually > will appear to be 1p plural only). > > > >> >> >> >> There is no "real" (ontic) physical reality, but still a *unique* >> (yet relative, conditional) measure on consistent enumerable >> extensions on all computations (going through your current states). >> >> I agree with this. > > Then physics is unique. Physics is what makes the pen dropped in the > air falling on the ground. That is reduced into an arithmetical > problem, by comp. > > > >> >> >> >> (Unless comp is false or that we are manipulated through a normal >> simulation). >> Physics is transformed into the study of a lawful precise >> arithmetical phenomenon of a type "first person plural experience". >> >> Not unless we are only considering a solipsistic observer! > > Not at all. We don't know that. Everett confirms comp + non solipsism. > > > > >> To obtain physics we need some means to define interactions and >> communications between multiple separable observers. > > Then you are doing just physics, and completely miss the comp > explanation of the origin of physics and consciousness. You might need > to (re)study the UDA. > > > > > >> This is a Bodies (plural) problem. > > And comp translated that very problem into a measure problem on all > computations. That is what makes comp interesting: it translates that > body problem in a problem in arithmetic. > > > >> Each observer can be shown to have FPI by your argument, but that is >> about it. Everything else requires more assumptions, like maybe some >> kind of ASSA. >> >> >> >> You have to understand all this by yourself. Reread with attention >> and concentration all UDA steps, as they are all used at once in the >> step seven. >> >> >> Step seven can be confusing to even the highly attentive and >> intelligent among us. > > Just say what you don't understand. As I said, step seven used the > fact that you are familiar with the 1p/3p distinction and with the six > preceding steps. > > You don't need to believe in comp to understand the reasoning. > > Bruno > > > > > > >> >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/9, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>: >> >> On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> "But with comp the laws of physics are uniquely determined by a >> statistical sum on an infinity of computations" >> >> Uniquely determined? That is like saying that The Buckingham Palace >> is uniquely determined by the statistical sum of a infinity of pieces >> of lego thrown in the site by infinite B52 bombers. >> >> You might confuse geography and physics. The (sigma_1) arithmetic is >> the same for all, and the laws of physics must be given by the same >> laws for any universal machine. Comp makes physics invariant for all >> machine-observers, and entirely determined by the unique measure on >> all computation, as seen from the 1p view. This should be clear from >> the UD-Argument. Comp makes the primitive universe into a fairy tle, >> but by doing so, it makes the physics much more solid (indeed physics >> is deduced from addition and multiplication only, with comp at the >> meta-level). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/9, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>: >> >> On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:53, LizR wrote: >> >> On 9 January 2014 11:40, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote: >> Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes >> as "what data feels like when it's being processed" - hardly a >> detailed theory. He starts his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis from >> the opposite pole to Bruno, so to speak. I wonder if it's possible >> for a particular mathemathical object to drop out of comp - after >> all, we do appear to live in a universe with a specific set of laws >> of physics. Are these the only ones that could be generated by comp >> (or generated by the existence of conscious beings in Platonia) ? >> Maybe one needs to somehow intersect comp with the MUH to get the >> full story! >> >> I think to be conscious you need memory and a sense of time passage >> (although Bruno disputes this when he comes back from a salvia >> trip). To escape solipism there must be objects your perceive, some >> of which act like you, and on which you can act (c.f. Dr Johnson). >> That implies that there must be a quasi-classical world in order to >> support consciousness (at least human-like consciousness). >> >> Those all seem like reasonable criteria. I imagine they could be >> fulfilled by a variety of physical laws (e.g. it probably wouldn't >> make a huge difference to the existence of human beings if light >> travelled 10% faster or slower). So presumably comp covers all >> possible physical laws which create conscious beings... >> >> >> But with comp the laws of physics are uniquely determined by a >> statistical sum on an infinity of computations, and is unique (modulo >> that multiplication by three, as physics appears in three >> hypostases). >> And the determination is based on the FPI, and so physics is NOT a >> priori Turing emulable. The evidence that physics seems computable is >> a problem for comp, not an evidence for it. Fortunately the >> *apparent* >> "collapse" might be non-computable enough for comp to be correct. >> >> 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. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >> the Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/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 the >> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may >> contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, >> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may >> be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, >> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly >> prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify >> sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > 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. > -- Alberto. -- 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.