On 3/10/2018 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 8 Mar 2018, at 17:10, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2018, at 15:24, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/5/2018 11:49 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/5/2018 9:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
"Could" implies a question about possibilities. It's certainly logically
possible that there not be such a disease as leukemia. Is it nomologically
possible?...not as far as we know.
Well I'm not sure it's logically possible, for the reasons that Bruno
already addressed.
Bruno is assuming that everything not contrary to his theory exists
axiomatically...which is assuming the answer.
That is a rather uncharitable way of putting it.
Bruno has discussed his Universal Dovetailer Argument extensively. If
you assume comp and accept the argument, then we are inside of the
dovetailer. The dovetailer is an everything-generator.
That's exactly the problem with everythingism. It predicts all the stuff we
don't see.
Bruno, Russell, Tegmark and others tend to concern themselves a lot
with why our experience of reality looks like it does on the face of
everythingism. That is precisely the "hard part", no?
It is the hard part of the matter problem, when we understand that with
mechanism, the everything is no more that the sigma_1 arithmetical reality,
which I think everyone believe in, except the ultra-intuitionist.
Brent seemed to have understood this once, but seems to forget it recently
apparently.
If someone believe in a primal physical universe *and* in the survive of
consciousness through the digital transformation, it is up to them to explain
how the primal universe (and what is it?) acts on arithmetic for making some
computations seems more real than others.
I claim nothing, except that mechanism and materialism are incompatible, and
that the mind-body problem is reduced into deriving physics from the “material”
variants of machine’s ideal rational believability/justifiability. And then it
works at the propositional level, so we can say that today, we have not yet
detected any evidence for a primal universe through our observation of nature.
Let us encourage the pursue of the testing, simply.
Bruno, can you expand a bit? If you had a big grant to pursue this
research programme, what would you do?
I would hire mathematicians to continue the extraction of physics, which in
this case would mean to optimise the theorem provers for the machine’s quantum
logic (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) and compare them to the quantum logics of nature
(where some research do exist already, but that needs to make progress too).
Now, we have three quantum logics, and all three have more theorems than the
physical-empirical quantum logics, as they have the Löbian constraints, and so, some
quantum tautologies are original and we have to test them. Then we have to isolate
the tensor product, without postulating a linear logic superimposed to the quantum
logic (that would work, but to exploit the G/G* difference, we have no other choice
than to derive the “linear and” from the machine-quantum physicalness, where some
tools from knot theory (and its relation with quantum statistics) might be available
if some relation between the quantisation ([]<>A, with the box and diamond of
Z1*, S4Grz1, X1*) are verified, which is still open.
My work has only open the door on a non Aristotelian way to conceive rationally
the observation, but now, this asks for continual verification until we find a
discrepancy, and in that case we learn that Mechanism is false, or we continue
with the simple mechanist theory, as it explains both quanta and qualia, with
consistent relation in between.
Many important question remains: is the Hamiltonian purely physical (derivable
in arithmetic/theology) or geographical, in which case the multiverse allows
for a continuum of Hamitonians, etc.
Telmo, what could Galilee or Newton have answered to a similar question? In
fact all physical facts must be explained by the theology of numbers. If it
miss Dark Matter or GR or anything, such things can be geographical/contingent,
but if it contradicts them, then such thing becomes evidence that mechanism is
false (or that we are in a second order simulation à la Bostrom).
My initial goal was just in using Digital Mechanism to reduce the mind-body
problem to the problem of deriving physics from Number (theology).
I did not expect to derive already 3 propositional physics. Now we have to
derive the first order physics, and continue the comparison with Nature.
But you keep claiming you have derived quantum mechanics...which
implies, at a minimum, linear evolution of rays in complex Hilbert space
and the Born rule. I don't see it.
Brent
--
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.
