# Re: Tegmark and consciousness

```Dear Brent and LizR,

Could it be that we are really discussing the Word Problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_problem_for_groups```
```
Note the relation to computations, via the use of recursively enumerable
sets!

A pair of words, as defined in the Wiki article, could represent the
content of a pair of observers (each defined per Bruno's theoretical
construction as the intersection of an infinity of computations).

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 2:04 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 1/12/2014 12:55 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret,
>> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct
>> which, with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes
>> observed phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is
>> solely and precisely that it is  expected to work.
>>      --—John von Neumann
>>
>  How does one know which mathematical construct to try out, to see if it
> will work? Surely interpretation becomes necessary at some point.
>
>
> Von Neumann recognizes above that some interpretation is necessary for the
> application of mathematics, "the addition of certain verbal
> interpretations".  Which mathematics to try may be suggested by the
> interpretation of some earlier theories, which is what I see as useful
> about metaphysics - it may suggest improved physics.
>
> overlooked, is that even those theories/models we think of a providing
> "good explanations" only seem that way because of familiarity.  We think
> easily of gravity as explaining the orbit of the Moon.  But in the 17th
> century it prompted the question, "But what is pushing on the Moon to
> provide the force?"  Now we say there is no force, it's just a distortion
> of space, so the Moon is just going in a "straight line".  So the
> observable facts stay the same, the predictions become a little more
> accurate, but the ontological "explanation" varies drastically.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> 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 use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, 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