Russell Standish wrote: >I raised this very issue in "Why Occams Razor", and came to the >conclusion that the only satisfactory "interpreter" is the observer >itself.
And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'. I propose the answer 'the self-referentially sound Lobian machine' (LM). (exemple: PEANO ARITHMETIC, ZF, VNBG, first-order extension of programming language, Second order Arithmetic, etc.) The Universal Dovetailer argument (UDA) shows that observation is selection (by LM) on near possibilities. Modelising near possibilities by consistent extensions (UD accessible) in the language of the Lobian machine, makes it possible to asks the Lobian machine what it can observe. The nuances, introduced by the incompleteness phenomenon, between p provable(p) provable(p) and p provable (p) and consistent(p) provable (p) and consistent(p) and p can then help to extract the fungibility equivalence structure (Deutsch sense ?, Fredkin or Toffoli?) of the possible sheaf of computational "histories". The structure I got from that looks like a quantum logic. (to be short) It is at least enough rich for translating little quantum gates in arithmetic (where the LM can observe). Coincidence? If I get enough gates the "schroedinger equation" will be shown necessary for all consistent machine looking near enough. Bruno PS Sorry for this merging of the two mailing list. But if universe can differentiate and merge, how could many worlder comp mailing lists not interfere too. O gosh that was a metacomment, and that too, and ..., I will be moderated out! (from the for-list) nooooooooooooooooh!!! Here I am using Gordon famous cry when dreaming meeting Bill Gates, iirc, hoping that works :o
