On 30 Aug 2012, at 04:40, Terren Suydam wrote:
hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the
potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological
status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with
regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all
computations have been performed in a timeless way.
OK. And not only they all exist, (in the same sense as all prime
numbers exist), but they all exist with a particular weighted
redundancy, independent of the choice of the U in the UD.
If so, it follows
that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an
infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some
arbitrary "current" state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I
can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from "the
infinite computations going through my state".
That's correct.
Otherwise, I think the
physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the
particulars of how the UD unfolds.
Yes.
Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same
ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I
think if it was a "lesser" infinity, so that the probability of my
state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my
interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence
is actually zero. Which is a contradiction.
This does not necessarily follows. We can be relatively rare. To
exists more than an instant, we need only to have enough normal
computations going through or state, but the initial state can be
"absolutely" rare. The same might be true for the origin of life.
Logically, as I am agnostic on this, to be sure.
Bruno
Terren
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential
infinities.
Of course that also implies that "you" are never complete, since at
any
given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many
computations that
will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating "you".
Brent
On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of
computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the
ordinality of the infinities involved.
Terren
Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite
computations.
So
at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of
"you" is
very
small, but non-zero. But we already knew that.
Brent
--
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@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.
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
