David,
It is the motivation of Everett to make coherent the wave equation and
the idea that mind is not something substantial acting on matter (like
Copenhagians are obliged to admit in a way or another).
To derive the phenomenology of the collapse, he used only local
interactions and
On 01 Mar 2010, at 11:58, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 March 2010 08:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Everett uses comp, in the usual intuitive way, because he
characterizes the
observer by its crisp memory, and he derives the phenomenology of
the wave
packet reduction, by showing it
On 2 March 2010 16:13, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think that you are forgetting the 8th step of the UDA. That is the Movie
Graph Argument (MGA).
It shows that, assuming comp, the physical supervenience has to be
abandonned, and should be substituted by the comp supervenience
On 28 Feb 2010, at 18:43, David Nyman wrote:
On 28 February 2010 15:45, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
UDA shows that the wave equation (not just the collapse) has to
emerge from
a relative state measure on all computational histories.
The schroedinger equation has to be itself the
On 1 March 2010 08:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Everett uses comp, in the usual intuitive way, because he characterizes the
observer by its crisp memory, and he derives the phenomenology of the wave
packet reduction, by showing it to appears through physical interaction in
the
On 27 Feb 2010, at 18:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 8 Feb, 14:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The main problem with Tegmark is that he assumes an implicit identity
thesis mind/observer-state which does not work once we assume the
computationalist hypothesis, (and thus cannot work with
On 28 February 2010 15:45, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
UDA shows that the wave equation (not just the collapse) has to emerge from
a relative state measure on all computational histories.
The schroedinger equation has to be itself the result of the abandon of the
identity thesis.
On 8 Feb, 14:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The main problem with Tegmark is that he assumes an implicit identity
thesis mind/observer-state which does not work once we assume the
computationalist hypothesis, (and thus cannot work with Everett
Quantum Mechanics either). The
Actually we have already discussed this a lot, and the work I explain
here (uda, auda) can be considered as an answer to Tegmark (or
Schmidhuber), except that it has been published many years before, and
relies on philosophy of mind/computer science or machine's theology.
The main problem
Assuming a 4-level hierarchy of universe as posited by Tegmark here...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283v1
Then the universe would be an aggregate of all mathematical structures.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much
Bruno:
is there a free version of Theoretical computer science and the
natural
sciences?
Ronald
On Feb 4, 2:45 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2010, at 15:28, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 05 Feb 2010, at 13:13, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
is there a free version of Theoretical computer science and the
natural
sciences?
I have still many preprints. People interested can send me their
addresses out of line.
Oops! I just see the axiom 3) below is not correct. Please
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:
Is your point that with addition, multiplication, and
On 04 Feb 2010, at 15:28, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument. It is an argument which is
supposed to show that if we take seriously the idea that we are
digitally emulable, then we have to
On 03 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:
Is your point that with addition, multiplication, and an infinite
number of successive symbols, any computable function can
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument. It is an argument which is supposed to
show that if we take seriously the idea that we are digitally emulable,
then we have to take seriously the idea that physics is a branch of
Bruno,
thanks for the answer.
What do you mean by universe? Do you mean, like many, the physical
universe (or multiverse), or do you mean the ultimate basic reality
(the third person everything)?
By universe I mean what we call a universe when we talk about universes
on this list,
On 30 Dec 2009, at 17:39, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
I still wait for the reasoning of the 'primitive' in your:
...if this physical universe can be captured by a program (a
number) or even by a mathematical structure. It is not a primitive
structure. It has a reason linked to a
Hi Mindey,
On 29 Dec 2009, at 15:07, Mindey wrote:
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define universe? Sorry if that question was answered
somewhere, but after a quick search I didn't find it.
What do you mean by universe? Do you mean, like many, the
Bruno,* *
I still wait for the reasoning of the 'primitive' in your:
*...if this physical universe can be captured by a program (a number) or
even by a mathematical structure. It is not a primitive structure. It has a
reason linked to a
statistics on computations.-...*
What primitive(?)
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define universe? Sorry if that question was answered
somewhere, but after a quick search I didn't find it.
Inyuki
http://www.universians.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Mindey,
I hurry to reply before some smarter guys do so on this list, so here is MY
opinion:
I consider this OUR universe a part of the Multiverse (unknown, unknowable,
but assumed) with its 'physical' (so far discovered!) built (similarly
assumed) and described as (our) so called 'physical
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define universe? Sorry if that question was answered
somewhere, but after a quick search I didn't find it.
To me it would be that which is
To me it would be that which is contained when you specify a number of
dimensions. 2d? The universe can be a piece of paper.
But that implies that dimensionality is a fundamental property of
reality. It is conceivable that dimensionality is not fundamental, but
rather emergent.
--
You
25 matches
Mail list logo
