On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, [email protected] wrote:
So....did anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is very
interesting, so I will make some comments, which might not been taken
100% seriously.
At first, we might say that any evidence that something is finite
hereby already look like a refutation of comp, and this basically at
the start, by taking seriously the FPI on *all* true sigma_1
sentences (which I recall somehow emulate the universal dovetailing).
So, the apparent existence of a finite past might be a trouble for the
computationalist hypothesis, below the substitution level, a first
person plural reality should look like a superposition of more and
more ever "possible states", up to the still possible inflation of
"white rabbits".
What restricts, possibly the inflation is the non triviality of the
logic of relative self-referential universal numbers.
Basically, the intensional variant ([]p & p, []p & Dt, []p & Dt & p,
with Gödel's arithmetical beweisbar predicate, and p for the sigma_1
arithmetical sentences (which I recall are the sentences of the type
ExP(x), with P a decidable predicate. Being able to prove all true
sigma_1 sentences is computably equivalent with being Turing universal).
Comp would have preferred, so to speak, a confirmation of brane
collisions, or supersymmetries, but to be be 100% serious, at least
one second, all this is still way above what comp can decide: open
problems.
Gathering information on a possible local physical beginning might
gives us clues on the first person plural sharable substitution level,
or of the depth (in Bennett sense of "intrinsically long computation")
of our cosmologies and cosmogonies. Beginning or beginnings?
Now classical computationalism and mathematical logic, and number
theory, can be many years late compared to physics, that's sure, but
it might be a bit slightly in advance in theology.
Certainly in machine theology. In the platonist sense of "theology"
where "God = Truth" at some "G*" level (the machine should not say
that "God = Truth", for example: but we can see it for simple machine
we can trust, and study their theology).
Advantage of comp: it does not eliminate the first-person, the knower,
the soul. On the contrary it attaches one to any universal number,
with varying induction powers, and it provides a role in the emergence
of laws and illusions. But the UDA shows that the quantization H ->
e^iH has to come from that first person (plural) view, notably from p -
> []<>p, with [] being the intensional variants of the beweisbar [],
and much work remain to be done.
Comp is not a solution, comp is a problem. I give the beginning of the
solution to illustrate the problem.
Oops, I am 110% serious here, sorry!
Bruno
On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:14:00 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
Inflation appears now to be evidenced
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite
============================
Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark
Twain
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
