On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote:That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics.Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp?Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those "realities" exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the "a measure battle", so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example.So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the "Strong Anthropic Principle" ?)Is that not tautological?If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ?We select them. See above.You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever yourtheory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test.Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on "AUDA", so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like "comp predicts whatever physics we've got!"This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p & <>t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be "geographical" and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ?If all the "hypostases" (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can "travel" in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in "Forever Undecided" (page 47): "The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs". Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But it can't be true everywhere with comp,It must be true at the physical level, about the "real" (by comp) physical reality.because, I can write a virtual world where this does not hold, and as it is a virtual world, an infinity of computations approximate it at any level in the UD deployement (like our reality).... hence, that "virtual" world is as real as ours by UDA (and not so virtual)...It is like a dream, or a simulation implemented on the real physics.hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true.So if you extract "F= KmM/r^2" from comp, and you refute it ostensibly (by flying) then you can infer that either comp is false, or you are dreaming (or you are in a simulation, done, not by the UD, but implemented on the real physics which is not done by the UD but supervenes on the whole UD in a non computable).You are right that we don't test just comp, but comp + theaetetus + we are at the base level of physics (not dreaming or simulated at a higher level). OK? (I think se have discussed this before, but it is OK to come back, as this is not so easy).
So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level.
Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe then it cannot confirm comp. Brent
In all case it is better than physics, which only compresses information, without justifying its existence and the modality of the compression, still less justifying a non communicable part of it (the physical sensation) or linking sensation and bodies in ad hoc ways without taking the FPI into account. With comp we don't have so much choice. That we might be dreaming is also true for physics (and that's why I often forget to mention the higher level dream, when I say that comp is refutable---that is universally true).Up to now, Everett-QM confirms comp, and Theaetetus *and* that we are not dreaming or in a simulation.Bruno
-- 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.
