On 7/6/2025 2:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
My intuition is that computation is the minimal, unambiguous ground
because it doesn't depend on any particular axiomatic system to define
what counts as an execution trace. Once you assume arithmetic, even in
a very weak form, you get the set of all computations in the sense of
partial recursive functions or universal dovetailing.
If you say everything, including non-computational or contradictory
structures, you open the door to any conceivable ontology, but then it
becomes unclear what selects or measures anything at all. That's the
part that feels too unconstrained to me, you lose any stable link
between what is describable, executable, and experienceable.
In other words, computation is not just what the equations allow,
since as you point out those depend on axiomatic choice, but rather
what is invariant across any formal system capable of encoding the
natural numbers. It's the minimal shared canvas. Beyond that, maybe
everything exists in some sense, but it's hard to see how such a
framework could connect to any coherent notion of experience or
probability.
If you're curious, I've tried to lay this out in more detail in some
recent essays on Medium.
https://allcolor.medium.com/the-sapiens-attractor-manifesto-2d934d4813d0
You're too easy on yourself. It's ok to define God as an endpoint of
recursive moral refinement. But then what is that? What is the "moral
refinement" operator and how does it act on itself. You list moral
axioms: compassion, justice, and truth but it is obvious that these
three are not axioms of any moral caculus and in fact are perfect a
candidates for paraconsistent logics. It is commonplace that it can be
the moral and compassionate thing to do, to lie to someone and it may
also serve justice. And justice and compassion often clash. So the the
reputed attractor, if it exists, must something like a moral quantum
superposition of these things you're labelled "axioms" but are only
components of morality.
You also just glide over the fact that morals are motivations and like
other motivations have evolved per Darwin. If you're going to explain
how these attractors work in reality, not just theory, you need to
explain the natural selection of morals, which implies extinction as
well as convergence. Bertrand Russel wrote an essay in which he said
that the development of nations would on the whole lead to the dominance
of liberal democracy and he cited history in support. I maintained that
optimistic viewpoint until recently. But now I see former liberal
democracies succumbing to populist dictator's
I my comment on the other two links later. It's time to entertain my
grand daughters now.
Brent
https://allcolor.medium.com/computational-consciousness-temporal-compression-and-the-unique-attractor-e2057cb69bc4
https://allcolor.medium.com/linking-finite-perceptual-spaces-fractality-and-the-god-loop-b85e39172726
Quentin
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 23:37, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a
écrit :
But then why limit it to computations? Why not assume everything,
computation or not? Then all possible computations will still be
there, emergent, but also other sequences we haven't even
imagined. After all, what is "allowed by the equations" depends
on rules of inference that we make up and there are alternative
rules: ZF and ZFC for example or more radically look at Graham
Priest's dialetheism.
Brent
On 7/6/2025 2:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Yes, I am fully in the Bruno Marchal perspective, not the
standard MWI, and I’ve been clear about that for years. My recent
essays only restate what I’ve consistently said: reality as the
totality of computations, with physics as an emergent phenomenon.
It is indeed a form of neo-Platonism, but for me it’s the only
framework that coherently links physics and subjective experience.
Quentin
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 23:19, Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
a écrit :
Why limit it to the equations we've found to describe our
world? Why not go full Bruno Marchal? I'm just amazed that
people invest this kind of belief in metaphysics. It's just
neo-Platonism.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4785647b-387f-4a8a-993e-6cf42761e830%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4785647b-387f-4a8a-993e-6cf42761e830%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo%3D2ajAWKNFJuQ%2BeYbp8w9_WUrzZnQPVfkhsdHtgdhK5A%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo%3D2ajAWKNFJuQ%2BeYbp8w9_WUrzZnQPVfkhsdHtgdhK5A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98a1e724-bb54-4bfc-b704-ba00e0cc6f5b%40gmail.com.
