Hi, Bruno wrote previously "...the physical reality has to be given by the measure on all computations." Would this not imply that physical reality has a zero measure?
My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me? If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why bother measuring what doesn't exist?! On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote: > > On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all > simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a > metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god type of > assumption. > > > But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists. > > > OK. > > > > > > And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to > 'prove to much'. It's just saying that whatever exists in your physical > theory is already in my arithmetical theory. > > > > Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and solve > partially) that measure problem. > > That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial. But > the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the measure on > all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be derived from the > measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse phenomenology can be > derived from the SWE. > > > > Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument. > > > It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple > general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine emulable. > > I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although a > partial one, which already gives a different (than usual) theological > perspective. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
