On 11 Jan 2014, at 15:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Der Bruno,

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 not.

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 illusion.

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- Argument.

To explain means to relate the thing we study from things on which we agree.

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 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