Re: The limit of all computations
On 20 May 2012, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all computations going throught your current state... what is computable is your current state, an infinity of computations goes through it. So I don't see the problem here, the UD is not an algorithm which computes the physical world 4D or whatever. Quentin Hi Quentin, Maybe you can answer some questions. These might be badly composed so feel free to fix them. ;-) 1) If my current state is equivalent to a 4-manifold and the next state is also, what is connecting the two? Markov's proof tells us that it is not a algorithm. So what is it? Markov theorem says that giving two arbitrary states, it is undecidable to know if a computation will relate those states or not. It does not say that some states are not algorithmically linked. With computer it is not in general possible to know in advance if states are related by computations. If they are, this can be usually decided, but if there are not , well there are no algorithm for deciding that in general. 2) Is there another equivalent set of words for the physical world is the limit of all computations going through your current state? 3) Is there at least one physical system running the computations? Is the physical universe a purely subjective appearance/experience for each conscious entity? What is it that shifts from one state to the next? 4) What is the cardinality of all computations? Aleph_0, when see in the third person picture. 2^aleph_0, when seen in the first person picture (well, the 3-view on the 1-views, because it is 1, from the 1_view on the 1_view). In that case, arbitrary sequence of natural numbers play the role of oracle. 5) Is the totality of what exists static and timeless and are all of the subsets of that totality static and timeless as well? Yes, for the basic ontological reality. No, for the epistemological reality. 6) Does all succession of events emerge only from the well ordering of Natural numbers? Not for the physical events. (epistemological, with comp). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 21 May 2012, at 07:31, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Yes. Are those entities that exist from the beginning (which is what ontological primitivity implies...) or are they aspects of the unfolding reality? I think they are concepts we made up. But you're the one claiming the universe (actually I think you mean the multiverse) is not computable and you think this is contrary to Bruno. But Bruno's UD isn't a Turing machine and what it produces is not computable, if I understand him correctly. ? The UD is a Turing machine. I gave the algorithm in LISP (and from this you can compile it into a Turing machine). What it does is computable, in the 3-views, but not in the 1-view (which 'contains' consciousness and matter). A simple pseudo code is begin For i, j, k, non negative integers Compute phi_i(j) up to k steps end The relation 'phi_i(j) = r' is purely arithmetical. The UD is just a cousin of the universal machine, forced to generate all what it can do. It has to dovetail for not being stuck in some infinite computations (which we cannot prevent in advance). The existence of UMs and UDs are theorem of elementary arithmetic. The UD gives the only one known effective notion of everything. This is debate that has been going on since Democritus and Heraclitus stepped into the Academy. Can you guess what ontology I am championing? That is what goes into defining meaningfulness. When you define that X is Y, you are also defining all not-X to equal not-Y, no? No. Unless your simply defining X to be identical with Y, a mere semantic renaming, then a definition is something like X:=Y|Zx. And it is not the case that ~X=~Y. OK. When you start talking about a collection then you have to define what are its members. I'm not talking about a collection. You're the one assuming that all 4-manifolds exist and that everything existing must be computed BY THE SAME ALGORITHM. That's two more assumptions than I'm willing to make. Is a universal algorithm capable of generating all possible outputs when feed all possible inputs? I dunno what a universal algorithm is. What you describe however is easy to write: x-input print x. I think a better answer is a Universal Turing Machine, or universal computable function code. It is a number u such that phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). This exist provably for all known and very different powerful enough 'programming language' (systems, numbers, programs, ...), and it exists absolutely, with Church thesis. Bruno What exactly is an algorithm in your thinking? An explicit sequence of instructions. Absent the specification or ability to specify the members of a collection, what can you say of the collection? This universe is defined ostensively. Interesting word: Ostensively. Represented or appearing as such... It implies a subject to whom the representations or appearances have meaningful content. Who plays that role in your thinking? You do. When I write this you know what I mean. And are we alone in the universe? You seem to take for granted the existence of others. I wouldn't say taken for granted. I have some evidence. Brent Brent What is the a priori constraint on the Universe? Why this one and not some other? Is the limit of all computations not a computation? How did this happen? No attempts to even comment on these? As Mark Twain said, I'm pleased to be able to answer all your questions directly. I don't know. Brent OK... -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 20 May 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/20/2012 6:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: In Bruno's theory, the physical world is not computed by an algorithm, the physical world is the limit of all computations going throught your current state... what is computable is your current state, an infinity of computations goes through it. So I don't see the problem here, the UD is not an algorithm which computes the physical world 4D or whatever. Quentin Hi Quentin, Maybe you can answer some questions. These might be badly composed so feel free to fix them. ;-) 1) If my current state is equivalent to a 4-manifold and the next state is also, what is connecting the two? Markov's proof tells us that it is not a algorithm. So what is it? I don't think Markov's theorem tells you that. It says there can be no algorithm that will determine the homomorphy of any two arbitrary compact 4-manifolds. But there is nothing that says the next state can be any arbitrary 4-manifold. In most theories it is an evolution of the Cauchy data on the present manifold, where 'present' is defined by some time slice. 2) Is there another equivalent set of words for the physical world is the limit of all computations going through your current state? 3) Is there at least one physical system running the computations? Is the physical universe a purely subjective appearance/ experience for each conscious entity? What is it that shifts from one state to the next? Well that's a crucial question. Bruno assumes that truth implies existence. That makes no sense. Only truth of existential statement entails existence. s(s(s(0))) is prime' entails Ex x is prime So if 1+1=2 is true that implies that 1, +, =, and 2 exist. This is because we assume logic, and P(n) === ExP(x) is an inference rule in first order logic. And this works for 1 and 2, not for + and =, which might exist for different reason, as well defined subsets of the models or as relation at the meta-level or through their Gödel numbers. I think this is a doubtful proposition; particularly when talking about infinities. Even if every number has a successor is true, what existence is implied? Just the non-existence of a number with no successor. 4) What is the cardinality of all computations? Aleph1. From the 1-views (or from the 3-view of the many 1-views). Bruno 5) Is the totality of what exists static and timeless and are all of the subsets of that totality static and timeless as well? 6) Does all succession of events emerge only from the well ordering of Natural numbers? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 4) What is the cardinality of all computations? Aleph1. Actually, it is aleph_0. The set of all computations is countable. OTOH, the set of all experiences (under COMP) is uncountable (2^\aleph_0 in fact), which only equals \aleph_1 if the continuity hypothesis holds. This is the origin of Bruno's claim that COMP entails that physics is not computable, a corrolory of which is that Digital Physics is refuted (since DP=COMP). -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 4) What is the cardinality of all computations? Aleph1. Actually, it is aleph_0. The set of all computations is countable. OTOH, the set of all experiences (under COMP) is uncountable (2^\aleph_0 in fact), which only equals \aleph_1 if the continuity hypothesis holds. Hi Russell, Interesting. Do you have any thoughts on what would follow from not holding the continuity (Cantor's continuum?) hypothesis? This is the origin of Bruno's claim that COMP entails that physics is not computable, a corrolory of which is that Digital Physics is refuted (since DP=COMP). Does the symbol = mean implies? I get confused ... -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself (independent of computations). Quentin -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself (independent of computations). Quentin Hi Quentin, OK, you are equating universe with physical universe? Are you considering computations to be ontologically primitive? It feels like I am starting to explain myself all over again. That's OK, but just a bit frustrating. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Sun, May 20, 2012 PM Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Free means it is not imposed onto you. It is free because the choice was made by you. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with the word will; its meaning is clear, people want to do some things and they don't want to do other things. On the other hand not only is it not clear if human beings have this thing called free will it's not even clear what the hell the term is supposed to mean. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/20/2012 9:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 4) What is the cardinality of all computations? Aleph1. Actually, it is aleph_0. I see that the set of all programs is countable. The set of all computations is countable. OTOH, the set of all experiences (under COMP) is uncountable (2^\aleph_0 in fact), which only equals \aleph_1 if the continuity hypothesis holds. Ok, I was thinking that because the outputs of infinitely many programs were infinite there would be 2^\aleph_0, but I see that's a mistake. Brent This is the origin of Bruno's claim that COMP entails that physics is not computable, a corrolory of which is that Digital Physics is refuted (since DP=COMP). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On May 21, 10:47 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2012 PM Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Free means it is not imposed onto you. It is free because the choice was made by you. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with the word will; its meaning is clear, people want to do some things and they don't want to do other things. On the other hand not only is it not clear if human beings have this thing called free will it's not even clear what the hell the term is supposed to mean. In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of another, free will allows us to nominate our own option for approval. I don't see much of a difference between 'will' and 'free will'. They are both colloquial terms that don't need to be put under a microscope. Free will is used in philosophy and implies that one's will provides a significant degree of influence of in shaping your destiny or circumstances, as opposed to being put upon by circumstance to determine your every thought, feeling, and action. It emphasizes the liberating potential of voluntary personal effort. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself (independent of computations). Dear Quentin, My interest is philosophy so I am asking questions in an attempt to learn about peoples ideas. Now I am learning about yours. Your sentence here implies to me that only objects (considered as capable of being separate and isolated from all others) can exist. Only objects exist and not, for example, processes. Is this correct? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself (independent of computations). Dear Quentin, My interest is philosophy so I am asking questions in an attempt to learn about peoples ideas. Now I am learning about yours. Your sentence here implies to me that only objects (considered as capable of being separate and isolated from all others) can exist. Only objects exist and not, for example, processes. Is this correct? No, it depends what you mean by existing. When I say in comp the universe per se does not exist, I mean it does not exist ontologically as it emerge from computations. Existence means different thing at different level. Does a table exist ? It depends at which level you describe it. I still don't understand what you mean by the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this. Regards, Quentin -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/21/2012 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 May 2012, at 07:31, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Yes. Are those entities that exist from the beginning (which is what ontological primitivity implies...) or are they aspects of the unfolding reality? I think they are concepts we made up. But you're the one claiming the universe (actually I think you mean the multiverse) is not computable and you think this is contrary to Bruno. But Bruno's UD isn't a Turing machine and what it produces is not computable, if I understand him correctly. ? The UD is a Turing machine. I gave the algorithm in LISP (and from this you can compile it into a Turing machine). What it does is computable, in the 3-views, but not in the 1-view (which 'contains' consciousness and matter). A simple pseudo code is begin For i, j, k, non negative integers Compute phi_i(j) up to k steps end The relation 'phi_i(j) = r' is purely arithmetical. The UD is just a cousin of the universal machine, forced to generate all what it can do. It has to dovetail for not being stuck in some infinite computations (which we cannot prevent in advance). The existence of UMs and UDs are theorem of elementary arithmetic. The UD gives the only one known effective notion of everything. Ok, I stand corrected. Then what is the relation to the problem Stephen poses. Can the UD compute the topology of all possible 4-manifolds - it seems it can since they correspond to Turing machine computations. So does Markov's theorem just correspond to the fact that there is no general algortihm to determine whether to Turing machines compute the same function? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:42:01AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: On 5/21/2012 12:33 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:06:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/20/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 4) What is the cardinality of all computations? Aleph1. Actually, it is aleph_0. The set of all computations is countable. OTOH, the set of all experiences (under COMP) is uncountable (2^\aleph_0 in fact), which only equals \aleph_1 if the continuity hypothesis holds. Hi Russell, Interesting. Do you have any thoughts on what would follow from not holding the continuity (Cantor's continuum?) hypothesis? No - its not my field. My understanding is that the CH has bugger all impact on quotidian mathematics - the stuff physicists use, basically. But it has a profound effect on the properties of transfinite sets. And nobody can decide whether CH should be true or false (both possibilities produce consistent results). Its one reason why Bruno would like to restrict ontology to machines, or at most integers - echoing Kronecker's quotable God made the integers, all else is the work of man. This is the origin of Bruno's claim that COMP entails that physics is not computable, a corrolory of which is that Digital Physics is refuted (since DP=COMP). Does the symbol = mean implies? I get confused ... Yes, that is the usual meaning. It can also be written (DP or not COMP). Of course in Fortran, it means something entirely different: it renames a type, much like the typedef statement of C. Sorry, that was a digression. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: In a branching multiverse where all possibilities happen at a decision point, some versions of you decide to type the sentence and others do not. This could be completely deterministic for the multiverse as a whole: x versions of you will definitely type it, y versions of you will definitely not. I understand the theory, but my example shows how that appears not to be the case, since my experience of intending to do something almost always results in an experience where I do what I intended. I can control the probability range that it will happen through the strength of my motive and the clarity of my sense. However, from your point of view, you don't know which version of you you will experience, so your future is indeterminate / random / probabilistic, not deterministic. So you say. How much do you want to bet that I'm going to sleep in my bed tonight? How about for the rest of my life not including vacations? That's a lot of universe where I sleep under a bush or on the roof or in Jellystone Park. There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide to sleep under a bush tonight. You would have to admit that under your concept of free will, otherwise in a deterministic single universe you would be compelled to sleep in your bed, which I don't have a problem with but you do. In a deterministic multiverse, you will definitely sleep in your bed in most universes (loosely most if they are infinite in number) and definitely sleep under a bush in a few. You can't be sure in which type of universe you will end up in so the future is indeterminate. It's impossible - logically impossible, impossible even if you know every deterministic detail of the multiverse's future history - for you to know which version will be the real you, since all versions have equal claim to being the real you. This is a quite simple, but counterintuitive idea. No I understand the idea completely, I just think it's an obvious plug for the inconsistencies of QM. Like Dark matter dark energy, superposition, emergence, and entanglement. It's all phlogiston, libido, elan vital, animal magnetism, etc. It's quite nice in theory, but it sodomizes one side of Occam's Razor with the other. It's counter intuitive because it's an absurd way of explaining the universe in terms of nearly infinite nearly nonsensical universes. Every grain of sand on every planet in the cosmos having it's own set of universes customized to fit every pebble collision and sea tousled movement? Seriously? With sense as a primitive you don't need any of that. The universe is one thing with different views of itself. Each view doesn't need to be a creator of literal separate universes. Whether it's true or not is a separate question but it does allow for your future to be truly indeterminate in a deterministic multiverse. The teleportation thought experiments we often talk about here model this in a simpler way. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself (independent of computations). Dear Quentin, My interest is philosophy so I am asking questions in an attempt to learn about peoples ideas. Now I am learning about yours. Your sentence here implies to me that only objects (considered as capable of being separate and isolated from all others) can exist. Only objects exist and not, for example, processes. Is this correct? No, it depends what you mean by existing. When I say in comp the universe per se does not exist, I mean it does not exist ontologically as it emerge from computations. Existence means different thing at different level. Does a table exist ? It depends at which level you describe it. Dear Quentin, I am trying to understand exactly how you think and define words. By exist are you considering capacity of the referent of a word, say table, of being actually experiencing by anyone that might happen to be in its vecinity or otherwise capable of being causally affected by the presence and non-presence of the table? I still don't understand what you mean by the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this. Regards, Quentin Don't worry about that for now. Let us nail down what existence is first. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The limit of all computations
2012/5/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/5/21 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No it's not a computation, it arises because at every step, computations diverge into new sets of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p indeterminacy. Quentin Hi Quentin, So could we agree that the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this? I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the universe per se does not exist, it emerges from computations and is not an object by itself (independent of computations). Dear Quentin, My interest is philosophy so I am asking questions in an attempt to learn about peoples ideas. Now I am learning about yours. Your sentence here implies to me that only objects (considered as capable of being separate and isolated from all others) can exist. Only objects exist and not, for example, processes. Is this correct? No, it depends what you mean by existing. When I say in comp the universe per se does not exist, I mean it does not exist ontologically as it emerge from computations. Existence means different thing at different level. Does a table exist ? It depends at which level you describe it. Dear Quentin, I am trying to understand exactly how you think and define words. By exist Existence is dependent on the level of description, and can be seperated by what exists ontologically and what exists epistemologically. So it depends on the theory you use to define existence. I would favor a theory which would define existence by what can be experienced/observed. Maybe it's a lack of imagination, but I don't know what it would mean for a thing to exist and never be observed/experienced. are you considering capacity of the referent of a word, say table, of being actually experiencing by anyone that might happen to be in its vecinity or otherwise capable of being causally affected by the presence and non-presence of the table? I still don't understand what you mean by the idea that the universe is defined/determined ab initio (in the beginning) is refuted by this. Regards, Quentin Don't worry about that for now. Let us nail down what existence is first. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
