Perhaps. I cannot exclude this, at this stage. Here, the "robust explanding universe" is only a manner of having a simple protocol in which we can understand that physics become secondary with respect to computer science/arithmetic.burningmouth wrote:UDA 7
SL, a and b above blew my mind. Is this possibly why the universe is expanding?
Hmm... Not sure you will like what will follow then, but I don't know, and to be franc, I don't care. I don't even know if me, or swim, like the idea.So that more computing memory for the 'Grand Simulation' is produced? I love this idea.
Tegmark, a physicist consider the case of an infinite homogenous cosmos. In that case, all events repeat infinitely in space and time (or space-time), and we have infinitely many doppelgangers, separate by *very* large distances. But Tegmark is unaware of the first person indeterminacy. he considers also other type of reason why there are many universes, including the quantum one, that Everett discovered when taking quantum mechanics to be universal, working at all scales and notably the cosmological.Have others discussed this idea in the scientific literature?
My point here is that if we take the mechanist hypothesis seriously enough, then eventually "all that" has to appear or to emerge from arithmetic seen from inside. This is testable, and basically makes the quantum into the digital seen by the digital. In a sense, it leads to the fact that we can test some deep point differentiating the current Aristotelian "large paradigm" (there is a primitive physical universe and consciousness is something emerging from it), from the Platonist paradigm, closer to mystics and some eastern ontologies, but reflected in most religion, and for which the physical universe is the border, or the shadow, of something non physical (like mathematical, arithmetical, computer-science theoretical).
I guess I anticipate. Take it easy.
Yes. But that asks for work. We can come back on this. It is related with statistics and the laws on big numbers.Kedabra (in the UDA7 thread) brought up entropy. Can entropy fit into the UD or simulation idea?
I took the dropping pen experience, as I could have taken any experience. I see that I took the "preparing and drinking tea" experience in my post to kedabra.Also, in your 'The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations' paper, you used the 'dropping of a pen' for your thought experiment. I like the idea of a dropping pen as a starting point. Maybe you could use the dropping pen for any future examples. I want to visualize the whole damn UD argument from the perspective of a dropping pen. Hell, I started this thread, so I'm giving myself some power -- and why not? I just got hit by a f'ing bus!
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/public ... ARCHAL.htm
I did neither attribute nor not attribute, a first person experience to the pen. That might make the thought experience *much* more complex, and I am not sure even understandable by some one having never smoke salvia.
Also, try to avoid that bus.
It will be important, for grasping step 7, to see that this applies to all experience you can do, notably in physics. That will be why physics will be reduced to number theory, in fine. But you made me again anticipate.
I hope you mean the first person POV of the guy dropping the pen, and not the one of the pen. Later if you insist we might try to formulate the problem in a language which might be comprehensible by some pen (but I am not sure you realize the enormity of that task. Keep in mind that we *assume* comp all along. It is not clear in which sense a pen can be said to be conscious by virtue of supporting some computation. The comp idea is usually enforced by a resemblance between a brain and a computer, and it is not obvious to recognize in a pen the equivalent of a brain or a computer.###################
OK. I just re-read the UDA7 thread. It was only two pages long, but it was already beyond my ability to understand it.
So this is how I would like us to continue. From now on, I would like you to describe the UD using the example of a pen dropping. I think it's a great visual. It involves a first person POV.
It is possible that the guy dropping the pen lived that experience, and this is actually necessary if there is a universal dovetailing in the (robust) universe (assumed in step seven). But I will explain you what is and how the UD works first, OK. Then we will drop that pen again.It contains movement which implies an infinity of running numerical associations. I guess it's possible for the pen to turn into a flying pig before it hits the floor.
It is risky. Please do, but I know it is risky. Salvia is like the bible, you can interpret it in many ways, but never literally, at least when you discuss it publicly. But it is not unlike comp, and the main thing to keep in mind, is that we communicate only hypotheses. Embedding the salvia experience might also invites me to say more on this that either comp, or the salvia experience makes me feel we can really "say".Also, I want to try to embed my actual salvia experiences into the discussion. But before we delve into the dropping pen visual, maybe you can answer the questions I posed. Take your time. You don't have to answer them all at once.
Of course, it is your thread, and my curiosity and interest might trigger me in encouraging you to do so, but expect absence of comments, and don't interpret those no-comments in any way, and remember, that unlike some of our colleagues here (grin), when the lady asks me to shut up, I do. I can say that swim remembers that "there" SWIM understand why and find that pretty obvious.
If we dig in computer science, you will see that something similar appears unavoidably for universal machines, when they look inward.
Near death experience are near inconsistency experience. Some truth becomes inconsistent by the very act of uttering them.
You are warned, Dummy burning