On 10/20/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/19/2012 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 22:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/17 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>>
2012/10/17 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 17 Oct 2012, at 10:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Life may support mathematics.
Arithmetic may support life. It is full of life and dreams.
Life is a computation devoted to making guesses about the future in
order to
self preserve . This is only possible in a world where natural
computers are
possible: in a world where the phisical laws have a mathematical nature.
Instead of comp creating a mathematical-phisical reality, is the
mathematical reality what creates the computations in which we live.
So all kind of arbitrary universes may exist, but only (some)
mathematical
ones can harbour self preserving computations, that is, observers.
OK. But harboring self-preserving computation is not enough, it must do
in a
first person measure winning way on all computations going through our
state. That's nice as this explain that your idea of evolution needs to
be
extended up to the origin of the physical laws.
I don´t think so .The difference between computation as an ordinary process
of
matter from the idea of computation as the ultimate essence of reality is
that
the first restrict not only the mathematical laws, but also forces a
matemacity
of reality because computation in living beings becomes a process with a
cost
that favour a low kolmogorov complexity for the reality. In essence, it
forces a
discoverable local universe... ,
In contrast, the idea of computation as the ultimate nature of realtity
postulates computations devoid of restrictions by definition, so they may
not
restrict anything in the reality that we perceive. we may be boltzmann
brains, we
may be a product not of evolution but a product of random computations. we
may
perceive elephants flying...
And still much of your conclussions coming from the first person indeterminacy may
hold by considering living beings as ordinary material personal computers.
Yes, that's step seven. If the universe is enough "big", to run a *significant* part
of the UD. But I think that the white rabbits disappear only on the limit of the whole
UD work (UD*).
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
Tell us more about how White Rabbits can appear if there is any restriction of
mutual logical consistency between 1p and in any arbitrary recursion of 1p content?
We assume comp. If a digital computer processes the activity of your brain in dream
state with white rabbits, it means that such a computation "with that dream" exist in
infinitely many local "incarnation" in the arithmetical (tiny, Turing universal) reality.
If you do a physical experience, the hallucination that all goes weird at that moment
exists also, in arithmetic. The measure problem consists in justifying from consistency,
self-reference, universal numbers, their rarity,
And their very specific correlation with the physical brain states of sleep.
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.
