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
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
