> On 24 Sep 2019, at 03:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 9/19/2019 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 16 Sep 2019, at 22:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/16/2019 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> As I said I my other post, it is just Descartes’ idea that our body obeys >>>> laws which are locally computable, made precise by using Turing >>>> mathematical definition of computability. It is the hypothesis that there >>>> no magic happening in the brain, somehow. Or that the brain is Digitally >>>> emulable *at some description level* relevant for staying alive and well. >>> But then you conclude that physical objects, like brains, are not Turing >>> computable...and thus arrive at contradiction to your starting hypothesis. >> No. As the reasoning show only that the particular matter used in the >> digital substitution does not matter, which we knew at the start. >> >> To get a contradiction you need to show that the matter that we observed is >> differ,t from the matter brought bay the infinitely many computations >> statistically interfering below our substitution level, but we do find there >> exactly what nature shows us there. > > It's hard to parse what that means.
Yes sorry. I type too much quickly. What I wanted to write is this: <<To get a contradiction you need to show that the matter that we observed is different from the matter brought by the infinitely many computations which are statistically interfering below our substitution level. QM without collapse confirms this. > But I think it says that we have to infer the structure of matter entailed by > the UD using some statistics (not clear which) Intuitively, it is the one brought by the first person indeterminacy on all computational consistent extension of you current relative state, as seen from the first person pont of view. Mathematically it is the one given by, with p representing sigma_1 sentences, the logic of []p & p, []p & <>t, and []p & <>t & p (and graded variants). Just “[]p” cannot work, due to the presence of the cul-de-sac worlds, imposed by incompleteness (<>[]f is true only in cul-de-sac worlds). > and compare this to the matter we observed (where? in the brain? in the > digital substitute?). In the arithmetical reality (seen differently from the person view defined from inside). > This reminds me of string theory. It's so complicated we can't figure out > what it implies, but we're sure that if we did there would be no > contradiction with observation. If there is no contradiction which nature, then we have solved the mind body problem together with the explanation of the origin of the illusion of the physical universe, and in passing found the simplest physical theory ever. Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz). I doubt this, but who knows? It has to be if mechanism is correct, and the derivation of physics is valid. We can only continue the testing. Contrary to what you say, it is shrewdly to imagine a theory which is more refutable than this universal machine’s theory. Ask is you doubt this, because your certainty that it fits with Nature is quite over-optimistic. 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a83dc9a8-a56d-7629-f5a0-a5a03ffd06ab%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7E6A7AF6-7B29-48EE-ADA5-856D4E4735B7%40ulb.ac.be.
