On 21 Jan 2017, at 09:29, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/120/the-crisis-of-the-multiverse
It begins to look like an understanding of the computationalist mind-
body problem (the UD paradox/argument), except it misses
computationalism, that is Turing, and Gödel, and still use the myth of
a Universe to restrict the indeterminacy on the unclear ontology.
The physical reality is what emerges in the limit of a competition
between infinities of universal numbers operating below our
substitution level. Above that level what remains locally are
competition between finitely many universal numbers, like gaz, cells,
brains, arithmetic, computers and programming languages.
In a sense, the UD is worse than Boltzman brain, but then arithmetic
justifies the intricacy and structure-full of the possible solution.
The understandable has a border, and it put some structure on the non
understandable.
Physicalism remains possible, but at the price of needing to assume
that consciousness cannot be an invariant of any recursive permutation
even with oracles. That would appear only as trying to put even more
away the *person* under the rug.
Is simpler to listen to the (Löbian) universal number, to see that
there is a person, in a sense close to the analysis of Parmenides,
taking the first five Parmenides positive hypotheses as the five
(arithmetical, p is an arbitrary arithmetical senetence, and [] is
Gödel's beweisbar) hypostases:
p,
[]p,
[]p & p,
[]p & <>p,
[]p & p & <>p.
That describes 5 fundamental ways the universal number can see itself
relatively to some universal number chosen, in my case I illustrate
with three of them: Robinson Arithmetic, SK-combinators, a (precise)
universal diophantine polynomial equation(s). [] is Gödel's beweisbar
predicate. It is justified because we limit ourselves on machines
which would derived correctly their own functioning in case they would
bet correctly to their substitution level (which no machine can know-
for-sure). It is "truly" universal, about the way universal numbers
are related.
It looks already elementary arithmetic defines a universal person lost
in a highly mathematically structured web of dreams, obeying laws,
from which we can at least test the physics obtained.
This illustrates at the least that a form of subjectivism (albeit not
a human one, but a "universal number" one) is empirically testable. It
generalizes Everett in the sense that it takes all computations into
account, not just the quantum one, which needs to be retrieved from
the phenomenal hypostases.
Inflation of possibilities is thread for all kind of modal realism,but
the other extreme leads to solipsism. Digital Mechanism and computer
science gives the tool to study a non trvial intermediate between the
inflation and the collapse of realities.
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 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.
