On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 24 Jun 2016, at 03:25, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as we know it >>>> or it wouldn't be another physical universe as we know it. >>>> >>> >>> > >>> So according to you, does every physical universe has to have hadrons, >>> electrons and photons, and 3 spatial dimensions? >>> >> >> No, according to me every physical universe must have something >> physical in it or it wouldn't be a physical universe. >> >> >> > >>> What in your mind delineates the physical from the mathematical? >> >> >> "Mathematics" is the best language minds have for thinking about the >> physical universe. >> And "physical" is anything that is NOT nothing. >> And "nothing" is anything that is >> infinite >> , >> unbounded >> , and >> homogeneous >> >> in both space and time. >> >> > So if a Game of Life computation qualifies as a physical universe, I am > guessing so would other cellular automata systems would. Some linear > cellular automata systems are even Turing universal: > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UniversalCellularAutomaton.html > > When we envision (imagine) a GoL emulation, we interpret it as a grid of > cells with changing states, but an equally consistent view would be to > imagine the grid as a binary number, whose bits flip from one step to > another according to finite rules. For example, the game tic-tac-toe > (a.k.a. naughts and crosses) is often envisioned as completing a line, or > diagonal with X's or O's, but a mathematically equivalent view of the game > is the players complete for selecting unique numbers from 1 to 9, such that > the sum of their selected numbers adds to 15 ( > https://www.mathworks.com/moler/exm/chapters/tictactoe.pdf ). > > All this is to say that a "physically existing GoL universe" is from the > inside of that world, no different (in any testable way) from a recursive > function operating on an integer. So can anyone truly differentiate a > "physically existing GoL universe" from a "platonically existing recursive > computation" when both are equivalent and for all intents and purposes > identical--sharing all the same internal relations isomorphically? > > If a GoL universe exists and contains a Turing machine executing the > universal dovetailer, no conscious entities within the programs executed by > the universal dovetailer could ever know their ultimate substrate happens > to be a GoL universe. > > > That would even have no sense, as here the GOL would only be a tool for us > to have some precise view of the UD. In fact we could not distinguish the > UD made by that GOL from the UD made by a GOL made by a UD made by a > Diophantine polynomial. Fortunately, the measure is formalism independent. > We need one, but anyone will do. Then it happens that we all believe, in > the relevant sense, in one of them, when we decide to not take our kids at > school when a teacher told them that there are infinitely many primes. > Wouldn't different formalisms lead to different frequencies of occurrences of different programs? It is not immediately clear to me that it wouldn't. > > Note that physics cannot been a priori Turing emulable, as it is given by > a first person limit on the FPI on the whole universal deployment (entirely > determined by a tiny part of the arithmetical reality). The miracle here is > that an infinite addition leads to subtraction of probabilities, a bit like > with Ramanujan sum. The explanation of this is in the math of > self-reference. > Is this without assuming imaginary measures? Or do imaginary numbers somehow fall out of the infinities? Jason > > Bruno > > > > > > Jason > > > >> >> >>>> Cells and particles are physical. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >>> Would you say it is a particle even when the particles have only 1 bit >>> of information associated with them "exists in this cell" >>> >> >> Yes I would and that's why you're not talking about nothing, you're >> talking about something, you're talking about the physical. You use plural >> words like "particles" and "them". So there is more than one. So neither >> particles nor cells can be infinite, unbounded, and homogeneous in both >> space and time. So it can't be nothing. So it must be physical. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
