On 11 Oct 2016, at 19:43, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he proposes.




Either it solves the measure problem, without using the quantum solution (easy!), but in that case it is Turing equivalent with "Universal Dovetailer", true (or provable) sigma_1 sentences, etc. And then the task remains to deduce it from qG and qG*, to get the genuine qualia relevant with the possible available quanta.

Not yet got the time to look at this. Busy times.





Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well. He takes a compatibilist position in respect to free will: free will is compatible with the determinism.

Thanks God!




At the same time, he says that his equation is the very strong intellectual achievement of the mankind.

Now I have a doubt.




I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game of Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the game printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat analogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what form the rules of the game should appear, but this after all gives some freedom to invent such a game.

I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared on a sheet of paper, nothing else.

What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining Game of Life in that sense?

It is a standard result in mathematical logic that this is what happens already in elementary arithmetic. Even just he polynomial diophantine equation are like that.

And we are always confronted to our first person self localization relatively to an infinity of "competing on your continuation" universal machines "execution".

What is Sean Carroll theology? If it is an Aristotelian, it has to provide the relevant non computationalist theory of mind to make it internally consistent.

I can't insist more to study the mathematical theory of self-reference (Gödel, Löb, ...) and its relation with the theory of computability (Turing, Church, Post, Kleene, ...). Incompleteness makes basically the rationalist and mystic theory of Moderatus of Gades (and quite many variants) coherent, and somehow necessary.

You have to extract physics from self-reference if you want benefits from the G - G* difference and manage the quanta and the qualia, the sounds and the senses, the justifiable sense and the probable theology which includes the natural science as a sort of limiting bord of the universal mind (the mind of the universal machine).

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read before Sean Carroll still assumes the theology of Aristotle (the belief in "Primary Matter", or in its more modern epsitemological version "physicalism"), doesn't he?

Bruno




Evgenii

P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/

--
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 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to