Re: The size of the universe

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/20/2020 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:39 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason, 
>>
>> When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the 
>> (phenomenological) physical reality? Or the absolute reality?
>>
>
> Hi Bruno. I describe several different cases of an infinite universe, 
> roughly:
>
>1. A spatially infinite universe, implied by a flat geometry of 
>spacetime and GR 
>2. An eternally, exponentially growing vacuum populated by infinite 
>big bangs (which manifest over infinite time) 
>3. Infinite and diverse or comprehensive realities (the infinite 
>landscape of universes described by string theory, or the infinite 
>structures inherent to mathematical realism). 
>
>  
>
>>
>> With mechanism, it is very plausible that the physical reality is 
>> infinite, as it is a sort of broder of the universal mind (the mind of the 
>> “virgin” universal machine).
>>
>> But even with an infinite physical reality, it is unclear if we are alone 
>> or not, in the physical reality. We are numerous in the arithmetical 
>> reality (which can be taken as the absolute one, modulo a change of 
>> universal machinery). But to have alien fellows in the physical reality, 
>> you need some homogeneity in that reality, which is not obvious at first 
>> sight.
>>
>
> I make no claims as to how close they aliens be, though I suppose if the 
> nearest alien life is beyond the horizon then we are for all intents and 
> purposes still alone.
>
> Homogeneity and infinite space are conclusions from standard cosmological 
> assumptions and models: the big bang, inflation, flat space. Would these 
> not imply the existence of alien life directly (moreover, the existence of 
> other earths and other copies of ourselves should you look far enough)?
>  
>
>>
>> In fact, I get the impression that we might be rare, if not alone. The 
>> probability for life might be as close to zero as von Neumann thought, but 
>> even the possibility of its evolution requires many conditions, so many 
>> that we might be alone in the cosmos (not in the multiverse, as there we 
>> have even doppelangers).
>>
>
> Good point. I am still reading: 
> https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011 
> I 
> think the author leans towards the "rare earth 
> " conclusion. I am 
> somewhat partial to the trancension hypothesis 
> , 
> but that might be due to my hopeful nature.
>
> Jason
>  
>
>>
>> I have no certainty, and this needs to progress in the universal machine 
>> canonical physics.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 May 2020, at 07:16, Jason Resch > 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brent, 
>>
>> I appreciate your comment. I've updated the article to reflect your 
>> suggestion and credit Friedmann.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:21 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>>> Friedmann discovered the expanding universe solution to Einstein's 
>>> equations in 1922, well before Lamaitre.  And Friedmann met with Einstein 
>>> and proposed the expanding universe cosmology to him.  Sadly he died in 
>>> 1925.  Lamaitre independently discovered some of the same solutions in 
>>> 1927.  When he showed them to Einstein, Einstein showed him Friedmann's 
>>> papers.  Lamaitre did invent the term "cosmic atom" and he connected the 
>>> solutions to Hubble's measurements.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> On 5/18/2020 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of 
>>> reality: 
>>> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/
>>>
>>> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are 
>>> largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers 
>>> many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation, 
>>> string theory, and mathematical realism. 
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> Given the human curiosity about life on different planets combined with 
> the impossibility of traveling to them, or even getting data from probes 
> within a human lifetime, I expect that (assuming we can survive another 
> century or so) we will engage in virtual exploration, i.e. we will develop 
> physically accurate simulations, like the Star Trek holodeck, and explore 
> all possible worlds...and our world in alternate histories.
>
> Brent
>

I think we might be able to send photon driven sail craft to stars within 
20 light years or so.  The Starshot initiative envisions spacecraft with v 
= .2c, or γ ≈ 1.02. I think that with large solar collimating Fresnel 
lenses we could get to v = .5c or γ ≈ 1.15. An interesting star such as Tau 
Ceti at 12 light years away it would take over 24 years to get there. The 
upper limit where redshifting of your 

Re: The size of the universe

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/20/2020 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:39 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:


Hi Jason,

When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the
(phenomenological) physical reality? Or the absolute reality?


Hi Bruno. I describe several different cases of an infinite universe, 
roughly:


 1. A spatially infinite universe, implied by a flat geometry of
spacetime and GR
 2. An eternally, exponentially growing vacuum populated by infinite
big bangs (which manifest over infinite time)
 3. Infinite and diverse or comprehensive realities (the infinite
landscape of universes described by string theory, or the infinite
structures inherent to mathematical realism).


With mechanism, it is very plausible that the physical reality is
infinite, as it is a sort of broder of the universal mind (the
mind of the “virgin” universal machine).

But even with an infinite physical reality, it is unclear if we
are alone or not, in the physical reality. We are numerous in the
arithmetical reality (which can be taken as the absolute one,
modulo a change of universal machinery). But to have alien fellows
in the physical reality, you need some homogeneity in that
reality, which is not obvious at first sight.


I make no claims as to how close they aliens be, though I suppose if 
the nearest alien life is beyond the horizon then we are for all 
intents and purposes still alone.


Homogeneity and infinite space are conclusions from standard 
cosmological assumptions and models: the big bang, inflation, flat 
space. Would these not imply the existence of alien life directly 
(moreover, the existence of other earths and other copies of ourselves 
should you look far enough)?



In fact, I get the impression that we might be rare, if not alone.
The probability for life might be as close to zero as von Neumann
thought, but even the possibility of its evolution requires many
conditions, so many that we might be alone in the cosmos (not in
the multiverse, as there we have even doppelangers).


Good point. I am still reading: 
https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011 I 
think the author leans towards the "rare earth 
" conclusion. I 
am somewhat partial to the trancension hypothesis 
, 
but that might be due to my hopeful nature.


Jason


I have no certainty, and this needs to progress in the universal
machine canonical physics.

Bruno




On 19 May 2020, at 07:16, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Brent,

I appreciate your comment. I've updated the article to reflect
your suggestion and credit Friedmann.

Jason

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:21 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Friedmann discovered the expanding universe solution to
Einstein's equations in 1922, well before Lamaitre. And
Friedmann met with Einstein and proposed the expanding
universe cosmology to him.  Sadly he died in 1925.  Lamaitre
independently discovered some of the same solutions in 1927. 
When he showed them to Einstein, Einstein showed him
Friedmann's papers.  Lamaitre did invent the term "cosmic
atom" and he connected the solutions to Hubble's measurements.

Brent

On 5/18/2020 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and
the scope of reality:
https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/

It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which
are largely inspired by some of the conversations I've
enjoyed here. It covers many topics including the historic
discoveries, the big bang, inflation, string theory, and
mathematical realism.

Jason


Given the human curiosity about life on different planets combined with 
the impossibility of traveling to them, or even getting data from probes 
within a human lifetime, I expect that (assuming we can survive another 
century or so) we will engage in virtual exploration, i.e. we will 
develop physically accurate simulations, like the Star Trek holodeck, 
and explore all possible worlds...and our world in alternate histories.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b57f2313-9a13-a612-b62c-98a9bb2dcf4c%40verizon.net.

Re: The size of the universe

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/20/2020 9:45 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I understand that Pi is proven to be normal, but is it true for the 
irrational numbers (Pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.) that probabilistically the 
chance of not finding a given finite sequence of digits goes to zero?


In a normal number, every sequence of n digits has density base^-n.   I 
don't think it has been proven that pi is normal, but it's been proven 
that the measure of non-normal numbers is zero.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e2ded793-938e-d1ba-a620-ed3e1d9bdd90%40verizon.net.

Re: The size of the universe

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/20/2020 6:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Jason,

When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the 
(phenomenological) physical reality? Or the absolute reality?


With mechanism, it is very plausible that the physical reality is 
infinite, as it is a sort of broder of the universal mind (the mind of 
the “virgin” universal machine).


But even with an infinite physical reality, it is unclear if we are 
alone or not, in the physical reality. We are numerous in the 
arithmetical reality (which can be taken as the absolute one, modulo a 
change of universal machinery). But to have alien fellows in the 
physical reality, you need some homogeneity in that reality, which is 
not obvious at first sight.


In fact, I get the impression that we might be rare, if not alone. The 
probability for life might be as close to zero as von Neumann thought, 
but even the possibility of its evolution requires many conditions, so 
many that we might be alone in the cosmos (not in the multiverse, as 
there we have even doppelangers).


I think the evidence suggests that there is a lot of life in the visible 
universe and even a lot of technological civilizations...but they are so 
sparse that we are effectively alone.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/414525f8-f1ae-7147-6a6a-e458498691c1%40verizon.net.

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/20/2020 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 18 May 2020, at 21:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/18/2020 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and 
their difference).


You frequently say this,


Yes, it is the PhD content.
1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the 
necessity of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic.

2) AUDA = the derivation itself.


but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.


Hand waving?

Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.

Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical 
theories, three of them being concerned with the appearance of 
matter in arithmetic, and so are testable, and indeed confirmed by 
all experiences until now.


They do not show the appearance of matter, the persistence of 
objects, the shared reality.  You merely assume that they 
must...since otherwise your theory doesn't work.


UDA explains that there is no other choice. It exposes the problem.


No, it simply asserts the problem follows from some axioms.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea772e6f-71c5-9852-694e-b7044a9c0401%40verizon.net.

Re: The size of the universe

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:39 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the
> (phenomenological) physical reality? Or the absolute reality?
>

Hi Bruno. I describe several different cases of an infinite universe,
roughly:

   1. A spatially infinite universe, implied by a flat geometry of
   spacetime and GR
   2. An eternally, exponentially growing vacuum populated by infinite big
   bangs (which manifest over infinite time)
   3. Infinite and diverse or comprehensive realities (the infinite
   landscape of universes described by string theory, or the infinite
   structures inherent to mathematical realism).



>
> With mechanism, it is very plausible that the physical reality is
> infinite, as it is a sort of broder of the universal mind (the mind of the
> “virgin” universal machine).
>
> But even with an infinite physical reality, it is unclear if we are alone
> or not, in the physical reality. We are numerous in the arithmetical
> reality (which can be taken as the absolute one, modulo a change of
> universal machinery). But to have alien fellows in the physical reality,
> you need some homogeneity in that reality, which is not obvious at first
> sight.
>

I make no claims as to how close they aliens be, though I suppose if the
nearest alien life is beyond the horizon then we are for all intents and
purposes still alone.

Homogeneity and infinite space are conclusions from standard cosmological
assumptions and models: the big bang, inflation, flat space. Would these
not imply the existence of alien life directly (moreover, the existence of
other earths and other copies of ourselves should you look far enough)?


>
> In fact, I get the impression that we might be rare, if not alone. The
> probability for life might be as close to zero as von Neumann thought, but
> even the possibility of its evolution requires many conditions, so many
> that we might be alone in the cosmos (not in the multiverse, as there we
> have even doppelangers).
>

Good point. I am still reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011 I
think the author leans towards the "rare earth
" conclusion. I am
somewhat partial to the trancension hypothesis
,
but that might be due to my hopeful nature.

Jason


>
> I have no certainty, and this needs to progress in the universal machine
> canonical physics.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On 19 May 2020, at 07:16, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> I appreciate your comment. I've updated the article to reflect your
> suggestion and credit Friedmann.
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:21 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Friedmann discovered the expanding universe solution to Einstein's
>> equations in 1922, well before Lamaitre.  And Friedmann met with Einstein
>> and proposed the expanding universe cosmology to him.  Sadly he died in
>> 1925.  Lamaitre independently discovered some of the same solutions in
>> 1927.  When he showed them to Einstein, Einstein showed him Friedmann's
>> papers.  Lamaitre did invent the term "cosmic atom" and he connected the
>> solutions to Hubble's measurements.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 5/18/2020 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of
>> reality:
>> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/
>>
>> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are
>> largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers
>> many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation,
>> string theory, and mathematical realism.
>>
>> Jason
>> --
>> 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/CA%2BBCJUiyRL5Fw9K7o02JwBiq4CVa5Ffr0ojd3y1jOhfKycZxJQ%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/e3a42437-6849-56f2-739d-7cb91823b304%40verizon.net
>> 
>> .
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are 

Re: The size of the universe

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 May 2020, at 05:20, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of
> reality:
> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/
>
> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are
> largely inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers
> many topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation,
> string theory, and mathematical realism.
>
>
>
>
> It has not been proved that the decimal expansion of PI contains all
> (finite codes of all) sequences.
>

I understand that Pi is proven to be normal, but is it true for the
irrational numbers (Pi, e, sqrt(2), etc.) that probabilistically the chance
of not finding a given finite sequence of digits goes to zero? Is it
correct to say that almost surely
 any sequence can be found?
If it does not hold for Pi, are there other numbers that would be better
examples for the type of analogy I am making? I want to show why
statistically an infinite space leads to near certainty of repetitions of
material arrangements assuming some kind of infinite uniformity, just like
the infinity of random-looking digits of an irrational number leads to
infinite repetitions among any finite sequence.


>
> It is easy to fiw, as you can take the number of Champernow, which
> trivially  contain all sequences:
>
> C = 0,12345678910111213141516….
>
> OK?
>
> Now, this is different from the universal dovetailing, which *executes*
> (semantically) all computations, and makes unavoidable that to solve the
> mind body problem, we have to extract the believes in bodies from the
> statistics on the first person continuation determined by all computations.
> It is here that it is crucial to distinguish between a computation (a
> notion involving counterfactuals) and a description of a computation, which
> does not.
>

Indeed. To be clear I am not making the case here that our universe is
contained within Pi, only showing that infinity leads to repeats so long as
the description is finite, be it a volume of matter and energy, or a finite
length of decimal digits.


>
> With Mechanism, physics is reduced to number psychology or theology, and
> theology is reduced to arithmetic (through the Gödel-Löb-Solovay theorems).
>

I am working on a post now which will get more into this, about why there
is something rather than nothing. How to bootstrap reality and universes
from arithmetical truth will be part of that. :-)
I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Jason

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUh%2BtsA_wSHxvZxNidKkmXTPx_M%2BnLdbh0GkqOyzRvGGoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The size of the universe

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Jason,

When you say that Reality is infinite, are you alluding to the 
(phenomenological) physical reality? Or the absolute reality?

With mechanism, it is very plausible that the physical reality is infinite, as 
it is a sort of broder of the universal mind (the mind of the “virgin” 
universal machine).

But even with an infinite physical reality, it is unclear if we are alone or 
not, in the physical reality. We are numerous in the arithmetical reality 
(which can be taken as the absolute one, modulo a change of universal 
machinery). But to have alien fellows in the physical reality, you need some 
homogeneity in that reality, which is not obvious at first sight.

In fact, I get the impression that we might be rare, if not alone. The 
probability for life might be as close to zero as von Neumann thought, but even 
the possibility of its evolution requires many conditions, so many that we 
might be alone in the cosmos (not in the multiverse, as there we have even 
doppelangers).

I have no certainty, and this needs to progress in the universal machine 
canonical physics.

Bruno



> On 19 May 2020, at 07:16, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> Hi Brent,
> 
> I appreciate your comment. I've updated the article to reflect your 
> suggestion and credit Friedmann.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:21 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> Friedmann discovered the expanding universe solution to Einstein's equations 
> in 1922, well before Lamaitre.  And Friedmann met with Einstein and proposed 
> the expanding universe cosmology to him.  Sadly he died in 1925.  Lamaitre 
> independently discovered some of the same solutions in 1927.  When he showed 
> them to Einstein, Einstein showed him Friedmann's papers.  Lamaitre did 
> invent the term "cosmic atom" and he connected the solutions to Hubble's 
> measurements.
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 5/18/2020 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of 
>> reality:
>> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ 
>> 
>> 
>> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are largely 
>> inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers many 
>> topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation, string 
>> theory, and mathematical realism.
>> 
>> Jason
>> -- 
>> 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/CA%2BBCJUiyRL5Fw9K7o02JwBiq4CVa5Ffr0ojd3y1jOhfKycZxJQ%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/e3a42437-6849-56f2-739d-7cb91823b304%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg3Sn%3DAUbaSLerOFUj2K-618XoRGO%3Dkfj%3D_crNzwiGfiw%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/89431E27-A3E0-4527-972B-022C9ABBC32C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 May 2020, at 16:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 15 May 2020, at 21:12, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:08:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14 May 2020, at 12:09, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is true!
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  "Magic " is described as 
>>> being a branch of applied computation (mathematics), therefore computers 
>>> and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic 
>>> spellbooks, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient 
>>> powers and opening gates to other dimensions. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t believe in “real magic”. If time travel was possible and a 
>> time-traveller comes back with a documentary showing Jesus making water into 
>> wine, I would still consider that the most plausible explanation would be 
>> that Jesus is a good prestidigitator. 
>> 
>> Why? Just by considering the degree of credulity of the humans, and their 
>> craft in prestidigitation. 
>> 
>> Similarly, I find far more reasonable, even “Occam-reasonable” that the 
>> appearance of a physical universe is due to number’s prestidigitation, 
>> because incompleteness shows the numbers being both terribly naïve, but also 
>> incredibly gifted in the art of making their fellow number believing almost 
>> everything. Gödel’s theorem warned us; if we are consistent, it is even 
>> consistent that we are inconsistent (<>t -> <>[]f).
>> 
>> Computationalism is Prestidigitalism. Lol. 
>> 
>> Wolfram is correct about “[]p”, but forget completely []p & p (and thus 
>> missed physics, theology, etc.)
>> 
>> At least Penrose is aware of the abyssal difference between “[]p” and “[]p & 
>> p”, but literally confusse them in its use of Gödel’s incompleteness against 
>> Mechanism.
>> 
>> So, with respect to metaphysics and to the Mind-Body problem in the frame of 
>> Descartes-Darwin Mechanism, we can say that Penrose is less wrong than 
>> Wolfram, and more interestingly-wrong.
>> 
>> I am not claiming that Penrose or Wolfram are wrong. I am just comparing 
>> them with the canonical theology of the universal machine, that is, with the 
>> 8 modes of self-truth/belief/knowledge/observation/sensation of the 
>> universal machine having enough induction beliefs/axioms, in any hard or 
>> soft relative implementation.
>> 
>> Those modes can be motivated through Mechanist thought experiments and/or 
>> through the Theaetetus of Plato.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Wolfram thinks that his Hypergraphic Universe Modeling (HUM) language can 
>> lead to a unified QM+GR theory.
>> 
>> Do you think consciousness is needed for this unification?
> 
> Not necessarily, in the sense that it is still possible to conceive a theory 
> of "everything physical” which would be logically independent of a theory of 
> consciousness, as far as we are interested in predicting first person plural 
> observation.
> 
> But such a theory would be cut from reality, as it would not be able to 
> explain why our consciousness satisfies those prediction, so it would not be 
> a theory of everything.
> 
> To get that theory of everything including mind and consciousness, there are 
> two options: a mechanist theory of mind, or a non mechanist theory of mind. 
> With a mechanist theory, you will need to derive the “theory of 
> everything-physical” from arithmetic. I don’t see any other way to get a 
> theory of consciousness adequate with the physical observation.
> With a non-mechanist theory of mind, everything remains open, if only because 
> such a theory of mind does not exist (except in faith tales).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> The get a theory of consciousness (or experience), one starts with a "sixth" 
> force/field, allowing for the other five -  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force 
> - around now.


The notion of (physical force) is, by default, a 3p notion (even if later we 
discover that it is a 1p-plural) notion, yet with clear 3p describable 
theories. I don’t see how adding a 3p notion can help. What is it, where does 
it come from, and, how is is related to consciousness, first person, qualia, 
etc.

And why? When you understand that the elementary truth related to any Turing 
complete theory is enough to explain the qualia, including the quanta, and that 
Nature seems to obey to the theory of quanta extracted from arithmetic. It 
looks like adding difficulties without needing them, just to make the problem 
more complex?


> 
> It's nature would be "localized" in a way different from the other five (or 
> four).
> 
> And no one knows what gravity - for example - really is either, aside from 
> some mathematical formulas - we invented - matching its "behavior".
> 

Re: Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 May 2020, at 21:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/18/2020 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18 May 2020, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/17/2020 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 the appearance of matter as they are explained by the mechanist 
 consciousness flux in arithmetic (itself explained by G and G* and their 
 difference).
>>> 
>>> You frequently say this,
>> 
>> Yes, it is the PhD content. 
>> 1) UDA = the constructive reduction of the mind-body problem to the 
>> necessity of deriving he physical laws from arithmetic. 
>> 2) AUDA = the derivation itself.
>> 
>>> but I have not seen this explanation except in vague hand waving.
>> 
>> Hand waving?
>> 
>> Your remark does look like hand waving, I would say.
>> 
>> Come on Brent, I am the guy who gives 8 precise mathematical theories, three 
>> of them being concerned with the appearance of matter in arithmetic, and so 
>> are testable, and indeed confirmed by all experiences until now.
> 
> They do not show the appearance of matter, the persistence of objects, the 
> shared reality.  You merely assume that they must...since otherwise your 
> theory doesn't work.

UDA explains that there is no other choice. It exposes the problem.

Then AUDA solves it at the propositional level, which is enough to see that 
measure exists and obey a quantum logics, and yes, this leads to an infinite 
sequence of open problems, which is normal for any "open science”.

Invoking an ontological commitment is not better than “God made it”. Even if 
false, it is interesting to discover that machine have a physics in arithmetic, 
and can test it. Up top now, Nature obeys the consequences of mechanism, so to 
invoke an ontological commitment (which is like a special propose oracle) is 
premature. Such an oracle explains everything, and it is like the alien in 
cosmology: we can appeal to them only on the last ressort.




> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I refer you to my two last papers(*), which contains also some difficult 
>> open problems.
>> You might try to ask specific questions.
>> 
>> Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
>> Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157 
>> 
> 
> A good example.  It's behind a paywall, but even the abstract shows that it 
> all aspirational.  Nothing is proven about matter except that "If I'm right 
> it must be provable.”

?

It is not "If I'm right it must be provable.”

It is If Mechanism is right, then physics becomes Z1* or S4Grz1, or X1*. Those 
are complete theories (well with the addition of the quantifier) sp let us just 
compare with Nature. 

If the physical laws does not appear in any of Z1*, X1* or S4Grz1, then 
Mechanism is refuted (up to some boring technical nuances). The degree of 
discrepancy provides a measurable degree of non-mechanism.  If physics appears 
in S4Grz1, then the reality is more idealist than we thought, and if it appears 
in Z1*, the physical reality is almost not idealist at all, despite remaining 
immaterial. 

The charge is reversed when we postulate mechanism. If you believe that a 
physical universe is needed to be assumed, then you have to explain how that 
works. I claim no truth, just that we can test this, and that quantum mechanics 
is by itself a very strong evidence for mechanism and its neopythagorean 
metaphysical consequences.



> 
> " We will explain that once we adopt the computationalist hypothesis, which 
> is a form of mechanist assumption, we have to derive from it how our belief 
> in the physical laws can emerge from *only* arithmetic and classical computer 
> science. In that sense we reduce the mind-body problem to a body problem 
> appearance in computer science, or in arithmeticThe main point is that 
> the derivation is constructive, and it provides the technical means to derive 
> physics from arithmetic, and this will make the computationalist hypothesis 
> empirically testable, and thus scientific in the Popperian analysis of 
> science."
> 
> 
>> 
>> Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
>> Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 
>> 
>> 
>> Now, if you read carefully the second part of my Sane04(*) or my “Plotinus 
>> paper" (larger public) talk, then, if you have   read some 
>> introduction to G and G*, like Smullyan “Forever Undecided” of better” 
>> Boolos 1979” or even better “Boolos   1993”, you have all the 
>> ingredient to proceed, and certainly to ask precise and specific question.
> 
> OK.  What's your definition of matter?


The usual definition (that is something made of elementary insurable entities 
which have 

Re: The size of the universe

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 May 2020, at 05:20, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> I recently wrote an article on the size of the universe and the scope of 
> reality:
> https://alwaysasking.com/how-big-is-the-universe/ 
> 
> 
> It's first of what I hope will be a series of articles which are largely 
> inspired by some of the conversations I've enjoyed here. It covers many 
> topics including the historic discoveries, the big bang, inflation, string 
> theory, and mathematical realism.



It has not been proved that the decimal expansion of PI contains all (finite 
codes of all) sequences.

It is easy to fiw, as you can take the number of Champernow, which trivially  
contain all sequences:

C = 0,12345678910111213141516….

OK?

Now, this is different from the universal dovetailing, which *executes* 
(semantically) all computations, and makes unavoidable that to solve the mind 
body problem, we have to extract the believes in bodies from the statistics on 
the first person continuation determined by all computations. It is here that 
it is crucial to distinguish between a computation (a notion involving 
counterfactuals) and a description of a computation, which does not.

With Mechanism, physics is reduced to number psychology or theology, and 
theology is reduced to arithmetic (through the Gödel-Löb-Solovay theorems).

Bruno



> 
> Jason
> 
> -- 
> 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/CA%2BBCJUiyRL5Fw9K7o02JwBiq4CVa5Ffr0ojd3y1jOhfKycZxJQ%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/71E16244-DB05-4DB0-B949-F4D39BD305F5%40ulb.ac.be.