On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:35:44PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Sep 2014, at 15:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > > >On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Russell Standish > ><li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:33:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > >wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Russell Standish > ><li...@hpcoders.com.au> > >> wrote: > >> > >> So I don't see: robust universe => all integers exist > > > >Nor do I. But then that is the exact inverse of what I stated: the > >arithmetic reality assumption in COMP entails a robust reality (one in > >which the UD runs to completion). > > > >If I remember the thesis correctly, than robust is a placeholder > >for some grandmother notion of physical reality, with enough > >consistency in historical/spatial/causal relations to allow the UD > >to run. Once reversal step is reached, the notion is dropped and > >isn't further needed. > > I agree. Non-robustness was introduced at step seven by the > physicalist trying to save physicalism + computationalism. > > To say that the arithmetical reality is robust can mislead people in > thinking that now the arithmetical reality is our physical universe.
But if robust means "the ontology has sufficient resources to run the universal dovetailer", then the arithmetic reality is robust. In your thesis you talk about the "extravagant hypothesis", which has to do with the UD running "concretely". Surely the point of that discussion is once the reversal is obtained, whether the UD runs "concretely" or "abstractly" has no bearing on the actual observed physics, thus eviscerating the whole notion of concreteness. We can do a Laplace - "je n'ai pas besoin de cet hypothese". But this is quite different to the discussion of whether the ontology is robust or not, which relates to driving a contradiction between computational and physical supervenience. Why would people be misled into thinking that AR is our physical universe? Didn't you define physical as being what we observe, ie phenomenology, and so by the reversal, this cannot be AR. For one thing, phenomenal physics has random oracles which the AR doesn't have - that is the point of your FPI finding, surely. > But the point is that the physical universe is redefined by a > modality of self-reference by entities emulated in the arithmetical > reality. Numbers does not become physical beings. It is more the > sigma_1 trues which become physical (observable) in the mind of the > (average) universal numbers/machines. > > Bruno > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
