> On 28 Jun 2018, at 20:00, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/28/2018 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Also, if another sort of a multiverse exists besides the quantum >>> multiverse, then in any physics experiment you're going to measure the >>> totality of all the effects of all multiverses in which you have exact >>> copies. The effects of these other multiverses e.g. as provided by >>> inflation theory cannot necessarily be dismissed as trivial (e.g. by saying >>> that it leads to uncertainty of the quantum state, the effects of which can >>> be absorbed in a density matrix), as counting states with the restriction >>> that the same observer is present per my argument in the previous posting, >>> also leads to quantum-like laws. >> Eventually, that can be related to the importance of not assuming any >> infinities. With arithmetic, we elude the non standard models of arithmetic, >> because the laws of addition and multiplication in such non standard model >> can be proved to be non computable. But with any theories which assumes some >> infinity, we can no more fight against the white rabbits. No Infinities is >> not an option, as I thought sometimes ago, but is made obligatory. Judson >> Webb insight was correct: Mechanism is a finitism. > > How is that consistent with your idea of the UD producing infinitely many > threads of computation through the same state?
I do not see the inconsistency. I guess you confuse the object in the model (the natural numbers, the finite pieces of computations, …) and the model itself (N is infinite, but is not an existing object in arithmetic, just a meta-decor when we take some meat-distance). The UD is a finite being, and do only finite things, forever, but that “forever” needs a richer phenomenology to be accounted for. The paradox resolve when we distinguish what we can prove and what is true. All semantics of the rich theories are based on some axiom of infinity, but no semantics of a theory can be part of the theory. That is a consequence of results by Gödel and Tarski. We cannot define “infinity” in arithmetic, and there is none. But of course, the model are all infinite, but not part of the theory. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
