On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Stephen,

Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the UDA, as it may betray a misunderstanding on my part. But if that's not the case, then it seems to me that I could never communicate with Glak because our consciousnesses are selecting different universes within the infinite possibilities of experiences traced by the UD. It's analogous to asking how we could communicate with someone outside of our light cone.


Stephen,

You and Glak can communicate when a third alien, Thon, in yet a third "universe" creates both you and Glak in a simulation in his labratory, and sets up a virtual telescreen in both the simulations that links you and Glak.

As you see, defining a universe as the reality supporting "the ability of more than one observer to communicate" becomes quite difficult in the computationalist framework.

Jason


Terren


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com > wrote:
Dear Terren,

Good question! I ask that you take what you wrote and add the following question: How do Glak and Terren Communicate?


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com > wrote:

Bruno,

It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but only for a particular point of view. So I, Terren, experience one and only one physics, because my consciousness is the selection criteria among the infinity of computations going through my state. But what about Glak, a being in an alternative physics? Glak's consciousness selects a unique/invariant physics for Glak, but that emergent physical universe Glak experiences is characterized by laws that are different from what I experience.

Terren


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

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

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 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 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 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.

--
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 u se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may con tain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confid ential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be con stituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recip ient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribut ion, 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.

--
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.

--
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.

Reply via email to