2014-05-07 17:20 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > > On 07 May 2014, at 11:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-05-07 11:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > >> >> On 06 May 2014, at 20:22, [email protected] wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But you do not ever make a hard prediction Bruno. >> >> >> I have no clue why you say that. It is the object of the whole work. You >> seem to misunderstand something in the UDA. >> > > I have to agree with ghibbsa... your actual prediction are vague, there > isn't any numerical hard predictions that we could do an experiment and > compare and refute or not... > > And even if you would give any, you can always ascribe the > non-corresponding result to geography... I asked you several time what in > comp is not "geography" ? As comp entails all and every simulations (as > precise as we can imagine them to be), it contains all numericable value > for any observable... so it must be geography... so what *hard* prediction > does comp make that can falsify it here and now ? I really mean hard > prediction, not some vague retrodiction of current theories. > > > > Comp, and to my knowledge, only classical comp, gives a precise criteria > to distinguish physics and geography. > > Physics concerns laws, that is physical rules of prediction true for all > universal machine. Geographies concern only prediction which are > contingently verified. >
So what are physical facts that comp predict ? what laws ? what can I measure in this universe that would not be *geography* but *true for all universal machine* and be able to falsify comp ? what is it ? what is the predicted value ? How comp predict it ? How can I measure it and confront it to comp prediction ? Regards, Quentin > > We have no choice on this. Without incompleteness, all modalities > corresponding to the arithmetical definitions of the points of view would > collapse, and in that case, but only in that case, physics would have been > reduced to an empty set, or to a boolean logic, and all physical facts > would have been shown to be geographical. > > That case is ruled out by incompleteness. So we have a non trivial (non > empty) set of physical laws, and we have that the observable obeys a > different logic than boolean logic. Indeed the math shows already a quantum > logic. > > Now we can test quantitatively if our observable verifies that logic. > Indeed the quantitative result already obtained rules out boolean logic, > and are given by quantum logic, and comp predicts and explains exactly that. > > From each Kripke model of the translation of that quantum logic in G, > which is an the output of the theorem prover for the logics Z1* (and > S4Grz1, and X1*), you can build experimental devices refuting classical > computationalism. > > You argument based on the fact that comp entails all and every > simulations, does not work, because physics is given by the first person > indeterminacy on the points of view, and so to get the number exact, you > need the exact *proportions* on the relative continuations, which is what > today is given by quantum probabilities, and comp confirms and explain that. > > The rest are open problem, and it is just a (difficult) exercise to see if > qZ1* can justifiy the presence or not of a "real time" quantum computer. As > I tend to believe QM (as physical, not geographical), if neither qS4Grz1, > qZ1*, qX1* can emulate a quantum computer, I would consider that as making > classical comp, if not comp itself, refuted. > > Note that it would be very astonishing that the Comp Quantum Logic is > equal to von Neuman main quantum logics, because their modal descriptions > are not exactly the same (we lost the necessitation rules), and so get > plausibly some different physical predictions already, but without > progressing in some optimization of the theorem prover of those modal > logics, we cannot say having isolate the experimental device making the > difference. > > The P = 1/2 in the WM-duplication, is a physical law, but the events "I am > in W" and "I am in M" are contingent. "Once in M I stay in M" is physical, > well it should be, and it is the case when you do the math. > > By UDA comp generalizes QM. Instead of Everett quantum relative > computational states, we have *all* comp relative computational states, and > the appearance of the universal wave is already partially explained (and > retrodict) by the universal machine introspection (or the arithmetical > UDA-reflexion). The point of UDA is that we *have to do* that > generalization, if saying yes to the doctor is correct at some level, so > that Everett's work is not completed. > > At first sight the probabilities can only add in the UD*, but that is > exactly what the machine explains as not obeying a boolean logic, and > obeying a quantum logic. The arithmetical quantization are given, the rest > is technical, highly technical (and that is a weakness if you want, as > philosophers fear math, and mathematicians fear philosophy, today). > > If classical comp is false, the qZ1* machinery provides a tool to measure > experimentally our divergence from comp. > > My feeling is that somewhere you might forget that physics is 1p (plural) > and non Turing emulable a priori, as you cannot emulate at each physical > instant the entire UD*. You can fail a simulated observer either by > simulating the right quantum logic below its substitution level, but then > from his point of view, he is in all versions of that "correct" simulation, > or by building a lie and revised infinitely often your program along with > the observation progress of the simulated observer. > > I guess more precisions will be given in the math thread. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
