On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-14 16:49 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 21:05 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
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).
I think you can't conclude anything, because as I point out, any
measure you made is geographical under comp hence no measure can
invalidate it.
I guess you mean any "measurement" I made is geographical.
I agree that the making of the measurement is geographical, but
what I measure might be physically universal, unless physics is
only geography, but that is already refuted by comp, thanks to
the non collapse of the modal logic brought by the intensional
variants.
Comp here already predicts that *there* is a physical part common
to all geographies, and that is what I call "physical laws", as
the rest will be sort of contingencies.
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?
Ok... but it is no more comp. The "we are at the base level of
physics" is the same thing as primitive matter, Peter Jones
realness ingredient.
Not at all. By definition of that realness ingredient, it cannot
be tested, except trivially by being "conscious", as all virtual
being not implemented in physics are non-conscious in that Peter
Jones theory. This makes Peter Jones "realness" neither
confirmable nor refutable (and thus pseudo-religious somehow, or
just a reification philosophical mistake).
But in our case, that "realness" (defined by the satisfiability
of comp + theaetetus + "non-dream") is *refutable*. That is why I
explained (to Brett Hall, notably) that a computationalist can
test if he belongs to an (higher order, physical (in the comp
sense)) simulation.
If you program that simulation, and I am the simulated observer,
I can derive the physical laws from comp (without doing any
observation) and compare it to what I observe. If that fits, I
can't conclude anything (and my 1p will overlap on reality and
the simulation. I still derived the correct laws of physics), but
if I find a discrepancy (and if you don't mess with my virtual
brain so that I stay "correct") then I can conclude that (~comp V
~Theaetetus V ~simulation).
As long as you don't specify anything measurable that can be use
to claim a discrepancy... you can't do that...
I give an infinity of such specification. If my environment obeys
to the physics Z1*, qZ1*, I can't conclude anything, but I will
still derive the correct laws, either by introspection, or by
observation. If my environment does not obey to Z1*, I am in an
artificial simulation.
That's not something you can measure, please be specific, what do
you see as experiment we could do to prove or disprove comp, what
measurement would be able to falsify comp, please be precise.
But we cannot measure a physical laws. We can only postulate it,
and see if our measurement confirms it or not.
Or we can derive laws, from a theory which is postulated.
So from QM, we can derive that the observable obeys a quantum logic.
From comp, we can derive that the observable obeys to some non
boolean logic.
Then we can compare the two logics.
Let me give you a specific example. let us take Bell's inequality.
A simple form is
(A & B) / (A & C) V (B & ~C) ("/" = we can deduce, I use "/"
because it is simpler, you can verify that with "->" in place of
"/", we get a tautology, and so that rule is valid in classical
logic, by modus ponens).
See my appendices on QM where it is shown how to build Stern
Gerlach or polarizers setting showing that this is booean tautology
is statistically violated by QM (and nature, even when A and B are
quite apart and should be independent). That tautology is not a
tautology for quantum logic. QL does not prove, and nature provides
counter-example.
Now QL proves a logical formula if and only if the modal logic B
proves the quantization of that formula. The quantization is a
recursive transformation, where you translate p (in QL) into []<>p
in B, and ~p is translated into []~p.
So what I say above can be expressed by the quantization of "(A &
B) -> (A & C) V (B & ~C)" is not a theorem of the modal logic B.
The quantization of "(A & B) / (A & C) V (B & ~C)" gives
[]<>A & []<>B / ([]<>A & []<>C) V []<>A & []~([]<>C)).
To refute comp + theaetetus + non-artificial-dream it is enough to
see if Z1* proves that formula, or derive that rules. If it does,
then it is impossible, in the comp-physics to violate Bell's
inequality, and Aspect experience would refute comp or Theatetus or
non-simulation.
Even F=m*a cannot be universal as I've shown,
It might be. I think it is (I mean the Feynman generalisation,
which is already close to comp-physics, but that's out of the
topic).
the fact that I could write a virtual world where it does not
hold, imply that this virtual world exists in the UD deployement
in an infinity of computations which interfere like our reality,
no difference here...
The computation interfere below the substitution level, but the
artificial simulation with F≠ma, bring an artificial physics,
which does not result from the interference below the subst. level.
It must be below the substitution level as such world(s) also
results from an infinity of computations...
Yes, but with "F≠ma" simulated on the top.
"an infinity of computations" is not enough, you need *the*
infinity of computations consistent with my actual state.
But it is consistent with the actual state of a sentient observer
inhabiting such worlds; so F=ma *cannot* be universal as any
physical measurement.
If it was, "F=ma" is not a law of physics. You beg the question.
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a virtual
world where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in an
infinity of versions in the UD deployment as our own reality... You
have no point proving our own reality could not be a "dream" in that
sense... The only thing that should render our own reality "more"
real, is that it certainly requires less rules than a reality where
F=ma is false...
Not at all. By the invariance of the first person, the number of rules
and the complexity of the explanations/programs is not relevant. If
not I would have solve the measure problem by an appeal to Kolmogorov
or Chaitin complexity. But this cannot work. It is only in the "self-
multiplication" factors that the laws of physics can become stable.
nature use linearity, and the discovery of arithmetical quantum logic
confirms up to now that fact. It makes the Everett multiplication of
populations (the first person plural) protecting comp from solipsism.
All pieces of dreams are consistent with the actual state of a
sentient being.
That is the origin of the white rabbits. if our brain is a universal
machine, we can can be failed, and are actually failed in infinities
of computations. UDA made the laws of physics in a probability
calculus, assuming the measure exist: that is: a law of physics is
what multiplies the normal histories again the aberrant one.
Yes but you don't have that measure nor a way to calculate it,
I do. That's what Z1* & Co. are supposed to provide. It is technically
complex to do, but everything is explained here. the rest are pure
open problem in math.
you don't know it and you can't know that our reality does win the
measure battle.
I make this testable, of course I need definitions (of belief,
knowledge, observation, in the ideal case of the self-referentially
correct machine needed to extract the "correct" physics).
Anyway the fact that almost anything is possible (with different
proportion as a measure is assumed), means that *no* measure can
invalidate computationalism...
Then no measure can invalidate Everett QM for the same reason. Comp
and QM makes both physics into a statistics.
computationalism is a metaphysical stands and up to now in your
argumentation I see nothing that could falsify comp... You always
say to compare physics to comp physics, but it's a dead end, no
contradiction can be inferred from that.
I cannot make sense of that. That opinion was widely hold before 1991,
as X1* and Z1* was believed to collapse the modal logic, due to the
fact that the "& p" and "p->[]p" seemed to impose simultaneously
antisymmetry and symmetry, but the nuances brought eventually by
incompleteness eventually refuted, amazingly enough, that collapse.
That is important as it makes comp distinguishing clearly comp
physical laws from comp possible geographies.
This can be translated in computer science/arithmetic, and the case
of probability one can be studied by its logic. This, all Löbian
machine can understand by "introspection" (self-reference) and so
the physics is derivable from self-reference only, and then tested
with the observation. Then the result is that a physical (lawful)
physical reality does exist, with a fundamental logic which is
already enough quantum-like to let us hope to have an equivalent of
Gleason theorem, and in that case the white rabbit problem is solved
*only* by the quantum logic we observe.
The infinity of computational consistent relative state obeys the
same logic in an artificial simulation and in the physics, emerging
(or not) from the sum on UD*.
That one is determined by computer science. The case of the
"probability one" logic is given by the arithmetical quantization.
so it is below the substitution level, because the level is finite
or comp is false.
If qZ1* proves F=ma, and if my environment does not obeys F=ma,
How would it proves that ?
By showing that Z1* gives the good type of quantum logic, enough to
assure Gleason theorem, and derive the measure from some canonical
(Hilbertian) semantics. Z1* is already able to decide if the
Hilbert space is finitely dimension, or infinitely dimensional.
Then dimension is related to the probability calculus (by works by
many quantum logicians), and normally, arithmetic add infinitely
many constraints at the first order modal logic level.
It might be hard, but I do thing that qZ1* is able to decide if
"F=ma" is valid or not in the worlds of the comp multiverses".
Nobody said it was simple, especially that such question is complex
for reasonable theorem provers.
[]<>A is written in a Z logic, so in G it is equivalent to []([]A V
<>A) & <>([]A V<>A), so the ultimate arithmetical propositions are
rather complex.
It can't, the proof is that there *can be* environments where F!
=ma which also results from an infinity of computations.
it will looks "dreamy" to me,
No argument there proving that.
I hope that what I explain above has clarified.
No... what you clarified was already known,
I have clarified that Bell's inequality violation is (most
plausibly) a law,
if it is "most plausibly", you haven't clarified anything...
For the contingent reason that it is still intractable. But the formal
theory and the theorems (or non theorems) are there.
And given that B violates the inequality, you can bet that the B^- (B
without necessitation) + some arithmetical constraints will violate too.
it is or it isn't but "most plausibly" is not a clarification...
Yes. But that is just an open problem. The theorem prover get a memory
overflow, simply. Meanwile, some open questions have been solved, but
most others remain.
and that, actually, all quantum tautologies are already either laws
or precise open problems, and explained why arithmetic must give all
constraints (by UDA) so that some "Gleason theorem" can be used.
I am not sure I understand what you seem missing.
I'm don't feel I'm missing anything, I challenge your view that UDA
is falsifiable.
? You mean comp? UDA is a reasoning: it is valid or not. AUDA is the
translation in arithmetic. It makes comp + the classical theory of
knowledge falsifiable. Indeed physics is entirely given by qZ1* and/or
qX1*, with some "harmonic" part given by S4Grz1.
I can hardly imagine something more falsifiable.
In 1991, when I found the "material intelligible and sensible
hypostases (the Z and X logic), I predicted that they would be refuted
in the year, by me or my students or colleagues. This did not
happened, despite their many efforts.
Later I predicted it would be refuted by experts in quantum logic
before 2000. But up to now, nature confirms the arithmetical
quantizations, extracted from S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*, and they
corroborate formally the fact that the comp laws physics are quantum
laws, despite we loose the necessitation rule in the corresponding (to
B) modal logic B^-
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.
