> > Roger: It's possible that what we see as existing is a simulation in some > other computer. > > > And thus in arithmetic, which can be proved to emulate all computers, on > all programs, on all input. This is standard knowledge for logicians, but > not always well known by non-logicians. It is crucial when we assume > computationalism. In particular the mere idea that 2+2=4 (and the like) > entails the existence of all computations going through you actual state > (say), even as part of infinitely many computations, all existing in the > same sense that "prime numbers exists". > In fact the result is that IF computationalism is correct THEN physics is > reduced to the calculus of the First Person Indeterminacy on all > computations (going through my actual state in case I want to make an > actual prediction). > > The interesting question is: does this leads to unitary evolution like it > is suggested by the empirical experience? > This has been partially solved: the logic of the probability one (on > yes-no experiments) gives a quantum logic, and a quantization of classical > histories similar to the one suggested by the experience. >
Roger: It's also possible that what we see as existing is not a simulation in some other computer. I'm not arguing that if there is an arithmetical reality or that we're a simulation then your ideas are right. All I'm saying is that if there's not an arithmetical reality or that we're not in a simulation, then another model is needed. That's the path I'm working on. ----------------------------- > My thinking is aimed at trying to figure out there are existent entities, > whether we call them simulations, singular arithmetic > computations/propositions, or whatever, instead of there not being existent > entities. > > > Of course. That is the most interesting question. Hmm... You might be > disappointed. > > It is logically impossible to explain or justify (prove) the existence of > something without assuming some things and some relation on those things. > Roger: Logical arguments are based on initial assumptions. Many things might seem impossible based on a certain set of assumptions. ----------------------------- > I will take a look. A participant of this list Peter Sas has made a facebook page on that question "why is there something rather than nothing". Roger: Thanks for checking it out. Yep, I've checked out Peter's stuff. Unfortunately, the website provider I use, google, doesn't allow page names beyond a certain length, and "why is there something rather than nothing" is beyond that limit. I looked at one of your publications you mentioned earlier but will look at it in more detail based on our discussion. ----------------------------- > While we are working on different models, it's been a great > discussion. Thanks. > > > Not sure we have different models... > My point is that we can work on such problem with the scientific attitude. > The difficulty is that it uses mathematical logic and theoretical computer > science, which are not so well known... > > > Roger: Your point about working on such problems with a scientific attitude is something I can totally agree with. At my site, I mention that one because metaphysics is supposed to be about the nature of being and reality, and because our universe (whether it's an arithmetic-based dream or physical entities or whatever) "be"s and exists, and because physics is the study of the universe, the laws of physics should be ultimately derivable from the principals of metaphysics. We can take metaphysical ideas and use them to build models of the universe and eventually make testable predictions, and if the evidence doesn't hold up then make some other hypotheses and test them. This is basically what science is, and I agree that it's the right attitude to take in all of our thinking in trying to figure out the universe. I'm a biochemist so will have to wait more until I retire to work on the physics predictions. But, until then, I can always think! > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
