Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 09:18:33PM -0800, Brian Tenneson wrote: I previously tried cutting and pasting the text instead of giving a link no one apparently went to before replying because the formatting was off. So I will do that because it seems that would be prudent. I figured it out. (I'm not computer guru) Wow 1700 lines of stuff. Not well organised, slabs quoted en masse from papers that are already fairly familiar, and duplicate information. No wonder people find it hard to respond. The various Tegmark papers referenced in your discussion have been discussed on this list before. I'll comment where you seem to be adding something. I haven't read Daegene Song's Non-Computability of Consciousness paper yet, but I'm sceptical it would be a strike against CUH (or COMP). I'm also rather sceptical about purported quantum functions being necessary for consciousness. Also, it is known that quantum computers are classically emulable (with exponential slowdown). Alright - I think the heart of where you wish to go is to use fuzzy logic to describe the mathematical structure of all mathematical structures. I don't know enough fuzzy logic. Is there a fuzzy universal set? And can one avoid Russell's paradox in FL? I'm not sure I would personally proceed further than this, my preferred ontological basis differs a bit from Tegmark's, and consequently doesn't suffer from this issue of consistently having to specify all of mathematics. The same can be said of Bruno's ontological basis, which differs yet again. In your next post - there is no bird's bird. A bird viewpoint is in fact the viewpoint of nobody. All it is a bunch of symmetries, really, with symmetries broken in just those necessary ways to allow an observer. See the discussion in section 9.1 of my book, in particular about the 3rd person viewpoint, which is effectively Max's bird viewpoint. I got lost on your speculations on the excluded middle. Perhaps you can refine. Was it connected with your fractal musings earlier perhaps? Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Discussion of the MUH
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:40PM -0800, nichomachus wrote: I would like to see that the relationship of the computable universe hypothesis to the MUH be clarified. Is our universe's physics classically computable at the quantum scale? If not, how does it follow that the macroscopic universe, or the universe as a whole is classically computable if its operation at the quantum level is not? I apologize if this question displays my naivete on the subject, but it is something I am currently endeavoring to more clearly understand. One can solve the Schroedinger equation using a classical algorithm. preferred? If we defined the complexity to be the length of the shortest possible computer program that could generate the results, doesn't this definition imply a particular computational architecture that would itself be necessary to account for in measuring algorithmic complexity? Also, does having the property of universality imply a definite lower-bound to the complexity of a hypothetical physics? once again, probably very naive questions on my part, but I would like to better understand these matters. This is resolved by using the observer as the reference to measure complexity. See my paper Why Occams Razor for a discussion. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RE : Re: Discussion of the MUH
Hi Brian As Russell said, we have been discussing this topic for at least a decade. We all respect each other. I am sure that Bruno did not mean harm when he made his comment. You bring up an interesting question: the relationship between Fuzzy logic and the MUH and you state that Fuzzy logic is a superset of deterministic logic. Isn't true that Fuzzy Logic can be implemented by means of a Turing Machine? Since a Turing Machine is purely deterministic it means that Fuzzy logic is actually a subset of logic. Hence the ad hoc introduction of Fuzzy logic may be unnecessary in the context of MUH. I don't think that the indeterminacy that we are considering here is fundamental or derives from an axiomatic approach. It is rather a consequence of living in many worlds simultaneously. When I make a measurement, a number of I's make(s) a measurements. The result of the measurement that each I perceive(s) defines the world where the I actually am (is). As you can see English is not rich enough to talk about I in the third person or in the plural. If there is a need for Fuzzy Logic, it would have to be a kind of logic adapted to deal with the MUH. I don't know enough to say if there is such a logic. George Brian Tenneson wrote: We get Tegmark on this list occasionally. He, like you, needs to acquaint himself more with the core concepts of THIS discussion. In his last post to us he admitted as much. By THIS discussion, did you mean the aspects of the connections to Fuzzy Logic and the MUH that I am discussing in THIS thread? Can we +please+ either talk about the first post on THIS thread or anything at least somewhat related or post in a different thread? I did not come here to argue about who is diverting the topic away. Please don't reply in THIS thread if you aren't going to discuss THIS topic (connections between Fuzzy Logic and the MUH). Thanks. I did not post my ideas in a random person's thread. If I did, I would be called a troll, perhaps, or at least, unnecessarily diverting the thread. It is insulting to me to be said I'm looking for attention. Why use THIS thread's bandwidth to analyze my psychological makeup? Thanks. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
