On 10 Jun 2015, at 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
As Brent has suggested. You simply contradict yourself here.
You say "It [comp] does not change physics", and "If comp change
the content of physics, and nature follows physics, it will be
comp which has to be abandoned."
The you say "I show that comp has testable consequence in the
content of the physical theories..."
I see how you make appear a contradiction. As I said, comp is true
and then is confirmed by physics, or comp is refuted by physics,
and on both case comp does not change physics. Just that comp is
testable.
These statements are mutually contradictory. If comp does not
change the content of physical theories, then it will have no
testable consequences.
In *that*sense, comp change so much physics that it makes it into a
branch of machine theology. Sure.
OK. So your claim is that physics is recoverable from the
computations of the dovetailer, and that if any of the physics so
recovered contradicts physics as developed by the usual methods of
science -- and tested by observation and experiment -- then that
disproves comp.
But then, later we have
Comp makes physics NOT emulable by any machine a priori.
Now if physics is not emulable by any machine, how is it to be
recovered from the computations of the dovetailer?
By the FPI on all computations continuing the "here-and-now" (defined
indexically with the DX=XX method).
Physics might be based on real numbers, and that would occur if the
"winner" is given by infinite sequence of diophantine polynomial
approximations. The first person invariance for the UD delays play a
crucial role here.
I am not at all clear what you mean by physics not being Turing
emulable. Is this simply to do with the fact that Turing machines
are digital, and physics assumes continuous variables -- real and
complex numbers?
That can play some role, yes. But some non computable oracle can also,
a priori, play some role. the random oracle can be shown to have some
role in the measure.
Keep in mind that my goal is just to make that problem precise. When
starting the thesis, I did not expect to solve the propositional case.
Or is it, as you have said somewhere, that a machine cannot predict
what result you will see when you perform a quantum experiment?
?
Only when you perform a self-duplication experience. I cannot use the
quantum here.
As things stand, you do have a conflict here.
You have not yet really grasp the step 7. We will come back on this.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
