> On 23 Jan 2020, at 22:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/23/2020 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 22 Jan 2020, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/22/2020 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 18 Jan 2020, at 10:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 2:00:23 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542 >>>>> >>>>> <https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Proof that physics = witchcraft with equations. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe programming (implementing simulations in programs) would be better. >>>> >>>> >>>> Note that if Mechanism is correct, the physical reality cannot be emulated >>>> by a computer. The reason is that if “we” can be emulated by a computer, >>>> physics has to be reduced into a statistic on *all* computations, >>> >>> Why "all". We can only experience a finite number of thoughts/feelings/etc. >> >> >> For a fraction of a second, maybe. But for more, you need to take into >> account the infinitely many computations executed in the universal >> dovetailing (aka the sigma_1 truth). >> >> Take a universal machinery phi_i. A computation is a sequence phi_u(j)^s >> with s = 1, 2, 3, …, (s numbers the steps) and for u some universal number. >> By the fact that all programs recurs infinitely often in the universal >> dovetailing, + the fact that the first person cannot be aware of the >> step-time delays of the universal dovetailer, to get the physical >> (statistical) prediction right, you need to take into account the infinitely >> many programs running you. The first person dynamical experience is always a >> statistic on all infinitely many relative computational histories. > > A statistic on an infinite set can be (and usually is) finite
What does that mean? You will need some measure on an infinite space to do the math. It will usually contain a continuum of open set on some non enumerable space. > (although it's not clear what "statistic" you mean...or is it just metaphor). It means the same as in the WM duplication, except that your relative continuation is all computations (including all oracles) going through your actual state. Cf step 7 of the UDA. > And if we compute the statistic we can compute our experience. The net result is not computable, like with a coin in practice, or like with a quantum coin in both theory and practice. We can compute the distribution, but not the outcome per se of the experience. 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72b98edd-2e39-d848-894a-3677dd038b81%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72b98edd-2e39-d848-894a-3677dd038b81%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/5CA0D69A-1324-4A2E-9A39-D03183828FB5%40ulb.ac.be.
