On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal <[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
your theory 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,
What's CPL? Classical Predicate Logic?
Classical Propositionnal Logic.
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 that can be explained from Noether's theorem + our insistence
that whatever we call a law should be translation invariant. In
other words we pick out what is translation invariant - and the rest
is geography.
OK. But Noether theorem assume space, real numbers, etc. But you can
see Z1* as a sort of generalization, and the interest relies in the
fact that this generalization take into account, and even start, from
the 1p notions. Keep in mind that the goal is not doing physics, but
solving or enlightening the mind-body problem or the 1p/3p relation.
But comp justifies this: the modalities of provability and
observation does not collapse, and so there are universal
(in a strong sense) laws or physical truth. Among those
already predicted by comp, is the Many-worlds aspect of reality,
which appears under the substitution level, and the existence of
indeterminacy and non-cloning. In particular, without QM, I would
probably tend to believe that comp is not plausible.
But comp gives the whole mathematics of observability, which leads
to infinitely many testable propositions. For example, a form of
Bell's inequality can be described in the logic Z1*, and, well, it
is still open if Z1* violates it. (because it is intractable,
despite the fact that Z1* is decidable, but it would be miraculous
that Z1* proves it, for some reason to lengthy to develop here).
But the point is that if Z1* proves that Bell inequality, then the
fact that nature violates it would refute comp. Z1* (and/or S4Grz1,
X1*) is (are) supposed to formalize the entire quantum logic, so
we can compare directly the quantum logics and the quantum
logic of comp.
I assume you said that backwards: You hope that Z1* proves that
Bell's inequality is violated and it did not that would be evidence
against your theory. I'm worried when you say something would
refute "comp" because you equivocate on "comp". Sometimes it just
means that some change in brain matter would leave consciousness
invariant; other times it means the the whole 8 step argument. If
comp is refuted by observation the first step might still be true,
the failure could be in any step.
In AUDA we assume people understand that comp entails all step in UDA.
I do not equivocate comp, no more than we equivocate when we use any
theorem in a theory. Logicians and mathematicians are used to identify
a theory with the set of all theorems.
Bruno
Brent
Some hope comes from a paper by Rawling and Selesnick(*), which use
quantum logic, and even the modal logic B, which is the modal form
of quantum logic (by a result due to Goldblatt), to implement a
quantum NOR. All this can be tested in Z1*, and normally we can
test the existence of quantum computation in Z1* (or in his
quantified extension qZ1*). Imagine that someone can prove that
qZ1* cannot emulate a quantum computer, and imagine we succeed in
implementing a quantum computation, then comp (+ Theaetetus) is
refuted.
Yesterday (!), I have been sent new papers on quantum logic, which
shows that the field has progressed, notably with respect of
quantum computing, and this suggest that the best way to refute
comp, or improve the knowledge theory, will come from the ability
of qS4Grz1, or qZ1*, or qX1*, to simulate a quantum computer.
Bruno
(*) J. P. Rawling and S. A. Selesnick. Orthologic and Quantum
Logic : Models and Computational
Elements. Journal of the ACM, 47(4) :721-751, 2000.
Regards,
Quentin
However I see that isn't so, so I will be interested to know how
it's testable - if I ever make it to understanding AUDA.
I hope to be able to explain enough so that you understand the
main line on this.
Meanwhile, more explanation, notably in my answer to Brent.
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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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.
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.
