On 10 Jan 2014, at 09:58, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unit
conversion factor between the + and - signature terms. It's value
is arbitrary, like "how many feet in a mile", which is why it is
now 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 because
such a universe has to drop out of the interations of conscious
beings in Platonia?
It is not the same. WAP use a form of ASSA, where comp uses only
RSSA. (Absolute versus Relative self sampling assumptions).
Ah, I don't quite understand that but I feel like a dim light migvht
have appeared.
We might revise step seven, as this should be understood from it.
Any TOE (that is any first order logical specification of any
universal system taken in the ontology) must give rise to the same
physics, at least for each pints of view. It gives the same
theology, 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 Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
