On 11 Jan 2014, at 15:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD,
UD*, which from the first person perspective is "entirely given",
by the 1p delay invariance."
The UD never stops. If a process lasts forever, it is eternal,
then it does not ever complete and thus its results never obtain in
any way that can be considered as accessible.
Then real numbers don't exist.
Ah, now you diverge from Kronecker. :-)
Yes, in the epistemology. God created the natural numbers, and the
natural numbers created the real numbers, to simplify their lives.
To belong to your first person indeterminacy domain, the UD needs
only to access the state, which, by non stopping, has to occur once.
of course we might need to look at the 10^(10^1000) nth step of the
UD. But the 1p is not aware of the "reconstitution" (in UD*) delay,
so that does not matter. Either your state is accessed, or not, and
if it is accessed it take a finite "time" (number of the UD-steps),
and belongs to the indeterminacy domain. So the global FPI does have
the whole infinite trace of the UD as domain, or if you prefer it is
the infinite union of all its finite parts. Just keep in mind the
step 2 and 4.
This makes no sense unless you are assuming time at the ontological
level for the "flow" of the UD.
This is your usual stance against block reality. We have discussed
this many times, and I eventually asked you what you assume, but get
no answer I could make sense of.
Another indication of non-neutrality.
For your "theory", as here you assume a primitive physical time. I do
We can make appeals from the fact that we seem to have a flow of
events/states (aka Time) at our level
Yes, we seem.
and wonder where that flow might originate.
From the indexicals. Bp & p, for example, indicates that the machines
feel their knowledge states as evolving through some subjective time.
The problem is that no change can emerge from stasis, not even an
Proof? I think that any proof of this will entail some non-comp axiom.
This should follow from the UDA.
The solution is obvious: Take Becoming as fundamental.
Then, not only this is no more neutral monism, but you assume what I
want to understand.
It is neutral in that no particular order or type is selected to exist
Then "becoming" is a fuzzy philosophical non workable stuff. What not
"God did it?". Anyway, that moves is forbidden in comp, by the UD-
To explain means to relate the thing we study from things on which we
You are not able to define that becoming in a way making it into a 3p
sharable and testable theory. But the becoming *emerging* from comp is
testable (indeed it gives the whole of physics).
while some other does not. Being and statics are then the relative
invariances, fixed points, automorphism, etc. within this neutrality.
Gives some axiom for "becoming", but if you make it "neutral" in your
(quite personal) sense, I don't even see how that could be possible.
You seem to continue to oppose philosophy to science, but that's bad
philosophy, I"m afraid. If you don't find a flaw in the UDA, I think
your point is equivalent to a form of non-computationalist stance.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.