Well Bruno, for me, even a more profound concept is from astrophysics and not from Platonic/Computational physics. That being, if we ride the back of cosmic inflation, if it is indeed fact, then what is lost beyond our optical event horizon? Let us presume that the cosmos expanded since the Bang at a rate of 6 times faster than light, so what information is undetectable beyond this light cone? (a tip o' the hat to Minkowski!). We are not referring to a cyclic cosmos Atticus Greek style, nor Turok-Penrose style, but simply within earlier renditions of this universe. Just hot plasma? Middle Earth? A grand Platonic computer performing a power-on and self test?
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 8:29 am Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why John K Clark My comment there: <<Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal machine can know which computations support it, and indeed that if the machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.>> We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical science). Bruno -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6A05E8FE-62FF-4614-9564-FB75CDC38502%40ulb.ac.be. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/299206009.1004530.1615341636042%40mail.yahoo.com.
