On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > > Assuming all possible (consistent mathematical) structures is the > simplest possible hypothesis. The problem with this is that this > 'whole' might be a bit too large or inconsistent in itself (like > Russell's Paradox), and like I've said before, there is no way for us > finite humans to know an oracle when we see it. If we're a bit more > modest, we can use the only mathematical notion that we know to be > truly universal - computation as by CTT. > > > OK. The main problem also is in the self-localization in the possible math > structure. Comp entails a first person indeterminacy which distribute us in > the mathematical reality, and what we perceive might NOT be a purely > mathematical structure, but something "supervening" on it from the inside > view. This is a point missed by people like Chalmers, Tegmark, Schmidhuber, > etc. > > > Bruno, would you say that Tegmark has still missed the point, given this article he co-authored: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3pg/aguirre_tegmark_layzer_cosmological/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066 Thanks, Jason -- 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.
