Bruno, can there not be layers of what you describe as "fundamental" to reality. Astronomers have surmised that there is a greater physical area beyond the detectable Hubble Volume. Might not there be space enough for both your primal layer and Max Tegmark's. Maybe a layer of dragons and unicorns, however, more functionally, a layer that acts as a relational or block-chain database, being merely the Platonic?
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2015 4:11 am Subject: Re: Is consciousness hypercomputable? On 11 Dec 2015, at 02:46, Dan wrote: Digital physics rests upon the Strong Church-Turing Thesis, which posits that nature does not admit non-computable real numbers: If digital physics is correct, then my body is Turing emulable. But then, the universal dovetailer argument shows that you need to derive physics from a statistics on the natural number computable relations, which entails that physics cannot be computable. This means that digital physics entails its own contrary, and thus digital physics is self-contradictory. This does not prevent digital physics from having applications, but it is wrong on the fundamental level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications AI researcher Ben Goertzel discusses the "Hypercomputable Humanlike Intelligence hypothesis, which suggests that the crux of humanlike intelligence is some sort of mental manipulation of uncomputable entities – i.e., some process of “hypercomputation” [1-6].": http://goertzel.org/papers/CognitiveInformaticsHypercomputationPaper.pdf This recent article seems to imply that there non-computable real numbers exist in nature. Would you agree? If so, does this not falsify the Strong Church Turing Thesis? That then seems to make the HHI hypothesis possible, and if the HHI hypothesis could be verified then according to Goertzel's argument science would never be able to describe cognition. (He's concerned about the implications that would have for neuroscience and AI, naturally.): http://factor-tech.com/connected-world/21062-a-fundamental-quantum-physics-problem-has-been-proved-unsolvable/ I've only come across this mailing list after reading Standish's "Theory of Nothing." On my blog, I have been compiling various recent work regarding the fabric of reality. It attempts to tie together Chaitin's metabiology (life as evolving software), Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception and Dynamics of Two Conscious Agents, modeling by Deutsch/Wallace of the Born rule using rational agents and decision theory, Standish's derivation of QM as implementation of evolution, Alex Wissner-Gross's Entropic Causal Forces relating intelligence to emergence/entropy, Frieden's Extreme Physical Information which seems to explain evolution as a program applying the anthropic principle and operating on particles and ideas (which are simply dual aspects of information, taken from a multiverse of infinite bit strings a la Standish or plentitude of mathematical structures a la Tegmark). It also considers the work of Bolognesi in "Algorithmic Causal Sets for a Computational Spacetime" and Schmidhuber's Goedel Machine,Theory of Creativity, and universal dovetailer. I suppose my current hypothesis about the fabric of reality (prior to fully grasping Tegmark's hypothesis) can be summarized as follows: Your attribution are wrong. See my papers in my URL below, or on research gate for the more recent one. But Tegmark and Schmidhuber missed the first person indeterminacy, and mainly the global first person indeterminacy, which is that if we are machine we are duplicable, and this leads to a first person indterminacy. See perhaps this paper: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Then they miss the fact that all computations are emulated in virtue of the true relation between numbers (or of the true relations in any Turing complete theory), which means that to make any prediction on first person experience (which is what we do when doing an experience in physics) we need to make a statistics on all computations seen from the first person point of view (the global FPI). Nature is reduced to an emerging first person (sharable) reality. Particles and ideas are two sides of the same coin: information. Information is a pure third person construct, so it cannot help to solve the problem. You need to structure information by the first person apprehension. See the paper mentioned above to understand this with more details. I explain this on this list since some time. You might consult the archive or read the sane04 paper. Driven by the anthropic Extreme Physical Information principle that nature is kind to observers (as efficiently as possible-- Occam's razor), ideas and "particles" evolve algorithmically in much the same way that genes do. What remains to be answered is why nature should be kind to observers, or - perhaps more fundamentally- what does it really mean to be an observer? Is it just a rational agent, similar perhaps to a Goedel machine? When we say nature is kind to observers, do we really imply that the rational agents ensure their own existence by maximizing novel pattern compression progress and possible future actions (as suggested by Hoffman's Conscious Agent Thesis)? Please forgive me if I repeat myself or produce "word salad" -- it can be difficult for me to sequence my thoughts linearly as I struggle to get them all down, so upon request I will clarify what I mean by anything above. I appreciate your patience and am eager to read your reply. I suggest you read the paper above: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html So that you can catch the wagon where we have arrived. My work on the "Goedel machine" (which I call Löbian machine), the universal dovetailer argument are much older, and much advanced that most citation you give. The only problem is that in the math part I use some amount of mathematical logic which is not very well known. Your intution is right: ideas evolve, but not like algorithm, which would single out one basic algorithm at the origin of the physical reality. That is possible, but must be derived from the statistics on all computations. It makes physics not entirely computable, but perhaps no more complex that computable + a random oracle (to use the FPI). Bruno -- 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. -- 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.
