# Re: Tegmark and consciousness

```
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:```
```
```
```Dear Bruno,

```
I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion of "a finite unique physical universe" in Step 8 of the UDA! In my thinking each and every observer has its own unique "finite unique physical universe"
```
Why?

```
(thus each 1p is unique and FPI follows from the inability to exactly compute some one elses 1p from yours.
```
Unclear.

```
See A.A. Markov's theorem of the computational intractability of the decision process of whether a pair of 4-manifolds are smooth diffeomorphic as a form of FPI argument.)
```
Irrelevant.

```
A real 3-p would be the intersection of infinitely many of 1p's of observers, it has vanishing or "null" content.
```
3p is easier than 1p.

```
We can obtain all that we know as "physics" by the notion of what some mutually consistent 1p have in common. (Thus a "substitution level" obtains automatically.)
```
How. Give an example.

```
```   If a pair of observers
```
```
Definition?

```
are such that their 1p's cannot be consistently combined, then they cannot be said to interact or communicate.
```
Why?

```
I start my reasoning with infinitely many observers, not one. It makes a difference in our respective thinking.
```
?
Arithmetic and the UD* contains infinitely many observers.

```
```
```
Your result that there cannot exist "a finite unique physical universe" in Step 8 is correct, but you are misinterpreting what this means, IMHO. One should not assume an absolute, Laplacean or Platonic version of a "physical universe" can exist
```
Sure. That's part of the result.

```
since such would be completely separated from observers and measurements
```
Why?

```
and thus not have any particular definite properties! At most it would have all possible properties which sums to a null set, as Russell Standish argued in A theory of Nothing.
```
Unclear.

```
We do not need to assume any kind of primitive physical world that exist independent of observer, as you point out in Step 8.
```
```
It is not that we don't need it, but that we cannot use it. Primitive Matter is shown being empty of any explanative power, even in physics.
```

```
We can obtain physical worlds or "realities" by considering the commonalities and mutual consistent descriptions of many observers (that can be distinguished by observers in the "reality". Again, I am using your definition of an observer.
```
```
Observers generate worlds by their participation with each other. Worlds support and implement computations. Computations generate new observers. The circle does not close unless there is no measure of change (time). It is a cycle, like a helix, eternally evolving and flowing, not a vicious circle.
```
```
```
```
You cannot invalidate a reasoning by working in another theory. You like comp, but continue to assume many things incompatible with it.
```
Bruno

I have to go now. I might answer other posts later.

```
```
```
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
```
On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
```
On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
```
I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea
that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous?
I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
form of mysticism.

```
It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be recovered from the UD and modal logic.
```
```
No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can survive with a digital brain "qua computatio", the physics can be recovered from UD and the modal logic.
```
```
the speculative covers only the "yes doctor", and the Church thesis (and thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis).
```
```
Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic of knowledge, observation, and sensations.
```
```
The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult, but the contrary would have been astonishing.
```
```
Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does not succeed in showing that it is a red herring?
```
Bruno

Brent

It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness
to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you
actually disagree with?

--
```
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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
```
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.

--
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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
```To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```
```
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