Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

```
On 18 Jan 2014, at 05:16, meekerdb wrote:```
```
```
```On 1/17/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
```
But apparently the brain has a lot to do with those computations in Platonia, c.f. anesthetic. Notice that I'm not a disciple of Platonia.
```
```
Me neither, I am agnostic - but within comp it is assumed, so while discussing comp we have to assume it (unless we're rejecting comp on that basis). But I can see that Platonia makes sense in that 17 does seem to be prime idependently of you and me and everyone else, which is (I'm told) enough for the whole shebang to come into some sort of existence.
```
```
I don't think you have to buy the equivalence between (17 is prime) is true and (17 is prime) exists. In fact Bruno always says you only have to believe the first for his argument to succeed.
```
Yes.
```
I am not even sure that "(17 is prime) exists" make sense. Unless you mean by "(17 is prime)" something like a sentence or symbol sequence. That exists in arithmetic too, but is not necessarily related to the fact that 17 is prime. The utterance of "18 is prime" exists also in arithmetic, and is true, actually, for all entities which denote the number 17 by the string "18".
```

```
But then he slips in the UD and it seems that every truth of arithmetic implies and existence.
```
?
```
Only (trivially) the truth of existential statement. "Ex prime(x)" is true, entails that a prime number exists.
```
```
We accept the first order logical rule that if some P(n) is true (that is P(sssssss...sss(0)) can be proved in RA, or PA, then ExP(x) is true.
```

```
I think this is the same problem as step 8. If everything has to be simulated, then there's no difference between simulated and real.
```
```
But the physics is never simulated. Only the dreams are. On the contrary, physics has to be recovered from the FPI on all simulations done in arithmetic. It is a priori not computable, and precisely must contain one non simulable aspect (like the direct result of the FPI).
```

```
If I'm "really" existing in an infinity of world/simulations that are *just like this one up to now* - then they ARE this one (c.f. Leibniz).
```
```
OK, but the point is that you are in an infinity of simulations, but what you can predict (physics) depends on all of them at once, by the FPI invariance of the number of steps done by the UD (or the length of proofs in RA) to get your comp state.
```
```
This explains entirely (assuming comp!) the origin of the physical laws, and why they differentiate into many worlds, and even more geographico-historical threads.
```
Bruno

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