On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:56, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Don't avoid my question please.
Where do the laws of physics come from ?
One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is
not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all
possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of
physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe.
That is "Tegmark error". It cannot work. First it is obvious that
numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair,
and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the
existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of
you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be
taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all*
computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and
which I have explained when entering on this mailing list.
Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation
for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one
computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in
term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did
grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here.
Bruno
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 [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.
