On 10 Jan 2014, at 09:58, LizR wrote:

## Advertising

On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unitconversion factor between the + and - signature terms. It's valueis arbitrary, like "how many feet in a mile", which is why it isnow an exact number in SI units.Oh yes, I seem to remember that physicists like to set c (and h?)to 1.So does comp predict that any TOE will have a unique solution -namely the one we experience? So is this an alternative to the WAP- we experience a universe compatible with our existence becausesuch a universe has to drop out of the interations of consciousbeings in Platonia?It is not the same. WAP use a form of ASSA, where comp uses onlyRSSA. (Absolute versus Relative self sampling assumptions).Ah, I don't quite understand that but I feel like a dim light migvhthave appeared.We might revise step seven, as this should be understood from it.Any TOE (that is any first order logical specification of anyuniversal system taken in the ontology) must give rise to the samephysics, at least for each pints of view. It gives the sametheology, more generally, and physics is defined through it.Remind me, which is step 7?

`In steps 0-6, you grasped that from a first person perspective we are`

`unaware of the reconstitution delays, that they does not change the`

`probability calculus (if it exists) and that this remains true for the`

`change between "physical implementation" and "physical virtual`

`implementation".`

`In step 7, you are supposed to be in a physical universe containing a`

`never stopping execution of a UD. So it is like in step six, except`

`that the indeterminacy domain is infinite. You can realize then that`

`to predict (in a conceptual and in an exact way) any first person`

`experience you can have, like when doing a pizza, you need to apply`

`the "probability calculus" on all your "reconstitutions" in the UD*`

`(the complete running of the UD). So physics is reduced to that`

`probability calculus on all your computations. OK?`

We can come back on this. Yes please. This is very interesting!

Thanks. tell me if you (re)saw the step 7 point. Bruno

--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.