Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

23 views
Skip to first unread message

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 9:09:21 PM3/10/21
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Only if we could break into other worldliness does MWI seem interesting.
Especially for trade between earth's! Maybe the Neanderthal earth never discovered yams as a food source, so we could trade some of ours for their wonderful gray crystals that do photonic computing so well? Your axioms are indisputable, but I would still hug the real world closely, as it doesn't do to ignore the punches that nature delivers.

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Bruno Marchal <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:45, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great Program. One may ask, running on what?




IF you are willing to bet, like Darwin did implicitly, that life is Turing emulable, so that for example, you can survive with an artificial digital brain (and there are evidences for this, if only the success of Darwin’s type of explanation in biology),
Then, the “Great program” are given any Universal Turing Machinery. More precisely, any Model (in the sense of Logician) of any Turing-complete theory would do the work. As the elementary arithmetic that we all learn in primary school is a universal machinery, we need only to believe in the truth of 2+2=4 & Co.

Now, you might ask where does that arithmetical reality come from?

Answer: any other universal machinery can explain this. You can derive the Robinson Axioms of Arithmetic from the simple theory of combinators, which has only two axioms Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz) together with three simple identity axioms(*). I did it explicitly on this forum (search “combinators”). 
So, all we need is to assume one Universal machinery, whichever you want.

Now, you might ask where does that “first” universal machinery comes from?

Answer: It is impossible to derive a universal machinery from something which is not already a universal machinery. So, a universal machinery is a needed to even just define the notion of machine and machinery.

(In case people have forgotten: a universal machinery is given by all programs in some Turing universal system, or the partial computable functions associates with those programs, the phi_i. A universal machine/number is a number u such that
phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). u is called the computer, x is called the program, and y is called the data. (x, y) is supposed to be a number (coding the two numbers x and y).

Note that when you have a universal number, you can define a universal machinery associated with it, and all universal machinery contains (infinitely many) universal numbers.

Once we assume/believe/bet-on Indexical Digital Mechanism (yes doctor + the Church Turing thesis), physics is reduced to a statistics on all (relative) computations going through our computational mental states, and that statistics is given by the modal logic of the “observable” variant of Gödel’s beweisbar predicate. 

A believer in an ontological physical universe must abandon Mechanism, or abandon rationality.

I got the "many-world” aspect of physics from this in the 1970, and it took 30 years to get quantum logic for the observable, and quantum intuitionist logic for the sensible.

I recall you the 8 modes of self-reference imposed by incompleteness. P represents sigma_1 arithmetical proposition. 

p (truth)
[]p (justifiable) (splits in two along G*/G)
[]p & p (knowable)
[]p & <>t (observable) (splits in two along G*/G)
[]p & <>t & p (sensible) (splits in two along G*/G)

G* proves them all equivalent, but G cannot prove any of those equivalences. It means that the machine sees the same truth, but from 8 very different perspective obeying 8 very different mathematics.

Bruno

(*) the full basic theory of combinators is:

RULES:

1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
2) If x = y then xz = yz
3) If x = y then zx = zy

AXIOMS:

4) Kxy = x
5) Sxyz = xz(yz)








On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
What was there before there was nothing?

I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation

But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws, number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.  The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different meanings.

Hi Brent,

You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".

I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three types, or modes of existence: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Three_Modes_of_Existence

Jason

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhz5QF90QwoJfbF-u76tuYr%2B61fY5%3D%2BbkhjLZMxxqrqEA%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1268362286.989763.1615333541353%40mail.yahoo.com.


--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA749CB4-1A7D-417A-99F2-FEC0E278449E%40ulb.ac.be
.

Jason Resch

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 1:50:58 AM3/11/21
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On Wednesday, March 10, 2021, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Only if we could break into other worldliness does MWI seem interesting.
Especially for trade between earth's! Maybe the Neanderthal earth never discovered yams as a food source, so we could trade some of ours for their wonderful gray crystals that do photonic computing so well? Your axioms are indisputable, but I would still hug the real world closely, as it doesn't do to ignore the punches that nature delivers.


You might like the TV series: Counterpart. It explorers these ideas.

Jason

 
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Bruno Marchal <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
What was there before there was nothing?

I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation

But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws, number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.  The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different meanings.

Hi Brent,

You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".

I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three types, or modes of existence: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Three_Modes_of_Existence

Jason

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78897196.50015.1615428555721%40mail.yahoo.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 12, 2021, 4:18:46 AM3/12/21
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 11 Mar 2021, at 03:09, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Only if we could break into other worldliness does MWI seem interesting.


The question is “is it true”. Truth does not care about us finding it interesting or not. Imagine that you discover that an asteroid will destroy the planets, and that the publisher rejected it and  tell you “this will not interest our audience” … This is like using a fake religion to control people. The scientist, on the contrary, try to remain cold minded, especially in hot subject.


Especially for trade between earth’s!

This would be possible (theoretically) if the Schroedinger equation was only a linear approximation of a non linear fundamental wave equation. That has been argued by Weingerg, and also Plaga in this very list. Again, we can wish the SWE to be non linear, as we could steal the petrol in infinity many “Irak” in parallel world, but note also that this makes thermodynamic and Relativity theory false…
The quantum is the MW, and probably the symptom that we are living in arithmetic, not in a physical reality. It is the reason of why consciousness remain focused on long and complex (deep) histories in Arithmetic. In fact it might even make us instinctually rare, and that would solve the Fermi paradox. Again, that solution is not fun, but then … we have to educated people to appreciate, or at least accept, truth. But after 1492 years of tradition of lies in the fundamental domain, that will still take some time. Hopefully not a millenium, but the last 30 years do not make me over-optimistic on this.



Maybe the Neanderthal earth never discovered yams as a food source, so we could trade some of ours for their wonderful gray crystals that do photonic computing so well? Your axioms are indisputable, but I would still hug the real world closely, as it doesn't do to ignore the punches that nature delivers.

Let us fight for the abolition of the prohibition laws in the whole multiverse! (Lol). 

Bruno




spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2021, 7:49:08 AM3/12/21
to mar...@ulb.ac.be, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, I am sure that if one parallel earth never produced cannabis and the people travel through, there would be a market. Thus, capitalism is a multi-universal force that many here would find discouraging. From dealing with physics as we know it to be, and not wander off into dark matter speculation, we both have an awareness that often discoveries get altered a bit, by researchers themselves who decide that they know what is best for us all, as well as the failure of proper peer review, because what's to force them to be honest, their conscience? Ahem!

For the purpose of existence, I say why not work with the need for an observer, as with Everett-Schrodinger-Wigner? Keep it as a working theory till it fails in tests repeatedly. Asking why this method for changing (identifying) reality has evolved, or was placed in I am open to. 


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages