> On 25 Jun 2018, at 18:56, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2018 4:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> But then you recognize that the physical world is a necessary component >>>>> and must exist to make computationalism meaningful. >>>> >>>> But that is exactly what happen. The physical reality is >>>> phenomenologically explained by the inability of the universal machine to >>>> see the equivalence between between []p <->([]p & p) and ([]p & <>p) and >>>> ([]p & <>p & p) with p (p sigma-1). The existence of the observable is >>>> explainable by the some modes of self-reference. >>> >>> You'll excuse me if I don't see that as an explanation of physical reality. >>> Maybe somebody else on the list does and can explain it. >> >> This should be already obvious at step 7. You are the one using the magic >> here. I am the one asking you a question. With the UDA we know that physics >> has to be a statistics on many computations. To understand that this >> actually works until now, you need to be familiar with the logic of machine >> self-reference, and study the observable modes. > > You often use the phrase, "...we know that X has to be..." as an invalid > argument; invalid because the unstated premise is "...has to be if my theory > is to be proven right." It's is your theory that is in question.
It is mechanism which is in question, as it should be. But then the evidences are in its favour until now. > > > I'm not using magic. I'm asking for help. Does anyone else understand how > physics is "explained by the inability of the universal machine to see the > equivalence between between []p <->([]p & p) and ([]p & <>p) and ([]p & <>p > & p) with p (p sigma-1).” Only those taking the time to study the mathematical part and are familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Do you agree that 1) []p obeys the logic G, which makes no sense for a probability calculus. 2) adding <>t in the mode changes the logic (not obvious: this comes from incompleteness), but provides a probability notion (hopefully even the searched measure) on the sigma_1 sentences (corresponding to the computations). What do you want me to clarify? You might buy the book by Boolos (1979 or 1993). Bruno > > 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. -- 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.
