Why is this one real as opposed to the others I'm not experiencing where I instead went to sleep instead of replying to your post, now?

Yes, but you can't program yourself to program yourself to program yourself [...] ad infinitum [...] to program yourself to program yourself...

And in being thus an orthogonal kind of space to physical space, information is a proper further dimension of existence. It is part of the fundamental picture in the way quantum mechanics eventually stumbled upon with the irreducible issue of the Heisenberg cut or wavefunction collapse. — apokrisis

I read a short part of that paper you linked. The author says:

Briefly, the idea is this. The universe and all systems within it are assumed to run according to universal laws whether or not observers or life exist. The mathematical descriptions of these laws are interpreted by ontological concepts of space, time, matter and energy but the laws themselves do not include the epistemological concepts of measurement and control events. However, measurement is essential if we want to predict any consequence of laws on a specific observable system. There must be measurement of initial conditions and the measurement process requires local control constraints of a measuring device or instrument.(The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, H. H.) Pattee

Both your conception of QM and the authors implies the Copanhagan Interpretation or the measurement effect. However, in this thread I have taken Everttian Quantum Mechanics as a startinig point. Everettian QM is determinisitic from what I have read, and David Deutsch in his Church-Turing-Deutsch principle asserts this as a fact due to assuming that because the machine is physical itself and thus obeys the same laws of the world, then it can itself replicate all those laws. This seems fundamentally different from saying that an initial condition is needed, whereas reality can be an infinite amount of possible states.

As you may have noticed Occam's razor flies out the window when confronted with the infinite amount of realities in the world. Everettian QM is an elegant solution when confronted with apparent infinities, which supersedes Occam's razor.

OK, let's start with this premise, there is just one concrete thing, the world. Now, in your last repy to me, you said "all truths are equal, depending on the relations between different objects". The premise that there are different objects contradicts that other premise, that there is just one concrete thing. So according to these two premises, which are contradictory, the idea of truth appears to be a fiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

The world entails all the facts (logical relations) of objects within it. They are one and the same.

No, it makes a "configuration of objects and things in the world" impossible. There is just one thing, the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is just one thing, the world, which entails all the configurations or state of affairs between objects.

You think that is the definition of computability? — ssu

Generally, yes. If something can not be proven to be true or false, then is it not undecidable and thus non-halting?

The point I am making is that giving a proof by computation isn't universal and adaptable to all models. — ssu

That's just saying that a system is incomplete and can not prove its own consistency.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is shown to be false* by the Free Will Theorem of Kochen and Conway. This is discussed in the 1st hour of the 6hr series of lectures given by Conway at Princeton: — tom

This is interesting and I don't dare to contest those findings by such brilliant minds. However, how does one explain that man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills?

Or in other words, why is this reality apparent as opposed to being in any other state of affairs?

The question - and I'm channelling the biologist Robert Rosen here - is whether or not this type of system has a rich enough 'entailment structure' to model the world in it's entirety. — StreetlightX

To be frank, I don't think any formal system can entail (or simulate) the world in its entirety. There will be inconsistencies within such a model system.

A conceptual example that comes to my mind is that there are mathematical truths that are unanswerable within the universe itself. However, it is not impossible to recreate a simpler version of the apparent world within the system itself (the universe).

However, I have yet to see a logical proof that a formal system can't replicate itself within the system itself. This might just be my feeble understanding of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem's.

Well, there is just one concrete thing, the world. There is no reason to assume a gap in intelligibility/understanding between the brain and all its functions and objects in the real world. If there were then we wouldn't even be able to know of it due to its inherent nature, otherwise called an unknown unknown...

So, this makes truth uniform with respect to any potential configuration of objects and things in the world.

I should say that I am a firm believer in the PoS (Principle of Sufficient Reason) namely that every cause or effect is intelligible in nature (which kind of automatically makes me a subscriber to Everettian Quantum Mechanics).

Well, I am quite ignorant and uneducated so forgive my lack of knowledge. May I ask if a universal Turing machine is an object that can simulate an artificial 'state-space'?

Why or why not?

Thank you.

Here's another question, "How is knowledge possible?" Or if you prefer, "If reality is comprehensible, then what makes it so?"

The CDT-Principle answers that question. — tom

Truth. Truth makes it possible. This is where I contest with the JTB theory of knowledge. Truth comes before beliefs and justification.

I don't quite see how the CTD principle answers that question, care to enlighten me?

Yes; but, you're asking me how does this forum exist. I'm just saying that it exists in logical space or if you prefer 'state-space'. It could be that I require further education on the matter; but, it seems to me as if you're asking something akin to 'How does the logical symbol ~(not) exist'?

I can't prove its existence; but, merely show it to you in action.

The whole truth is not revealed until this "why" is uncovered, and this is a matter of interpretation. As you can see from the example, the mathematical truth of prediction, constitutes a rather small portion of the overall "whole truth", and it is really just a starting point in uncovering the whole truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm confused. You seem to be making an issue about degrees of truth or different categories of truth. In logical space all truths are equal, depending on the relations between different objects.

You need to speak about the how of computability before you ask questions about the scope of it. — StreetlightX

I am no computer science expert or know all that much about computer architecture; but, what I do know about computational entities is that they are real in logical space. They exist as true or false entities in the logical space that computers recreate. See, this forum is a kind of logical space. The internet is a logical space. A calculator is also a logical space that comes handy. We don't need to know how a TV works to be able to enjoy television, which you might be doing here? Map territory distinction?

Logical space is a concept I've been mulling over for a while now, which I believe was first proposed by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus. I find it an apt description of how the universe might work in a Hilbert space with N dimensions with the wavefunction describing and evolving (deterministically or randomly).

I hope I didn't muddle the waters too much.

I feel there is a deep connection between philosophy and the mindset characterized by 'anxiety, depression/hopelessness, angst, apathy... etc.'

Obviously, it would be a gross overgeneralization to say that all philosophers are depressed and angsty individuals; but, the point still stands, why are, or have, so many philosophers professing/professed an attitude of despair, existential ennui, and angst?

In my personal experience when I feel down I tend to distract myself with philosophy, which helps me a lot as a form of therapy (referencing Wittgenstein here). But, it seems that if one is depressed or hopeless or anxious then they ought to be aware that some philosophers can exacerbate this condition. That's my take on the matter.

There is a way of knowing which is scientific, but there are other ways, at present and for the foreseeable future irreducible to computation, which are just as if not more important: ethical, artistic, political, spiritual. Personal; emotional. — mcdoodle

I think mentioning 'emergent phenomena' is apt here. Take Escher's paintings for example... These are properties of a system that are at the same time dependent and independent of the system itself. I guess you can call them 'language games' without logical hinges or bedrock beliefs...

So, my question is...

In order to answer such fascinating questions as 'Is the universe deterministic?', then one need compute said physical laws as per the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle and via such a method of replicating the laws of nature inside a computer, then it can be asserted the truth or falsehood of such statements.

If not, then how else to determine the validity of such statements?

I am reading it as we speak. I see no mention of the halting problem thus far...

Posted this question over at physicsforum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/church-turing-deutsch-principle-and-incompleteness-halting.895072/

I'm considering contacting David Deutsch in regards to this question... I don't see any harm in doing that as this is quite an important question in my mind.

I have yet to see proof that every physical law can be computed, which you (by the way) state as an absolute truth(?) Until then this is an unsubstantiated claim that you're throwing around here and there.

Yet, that statement requires much-needed justification!

Is it all platonism in modeling logical relations between objects in logical space?

If all the laws of physics can be computed, then doesn't that presuppose that logic is at least synonymous or at least as important as physics is. Or rather that physics relies on the laws of logic?

I always had a problem with understanding the importance of physics, mathematics, and logic and which of them follows from the rest.

No, if something is computable (doesn't encounter the Halting problem), then it is real in some sense. If something can't be computed then that is indicative of a gap in understanding or that there are some things that are unintelligible.

I made a post about this issue over at physics forum.

See:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proving-the-church-turing-deutsch-principle.894529/

I think it's ignorant to say that (The West has a bigger military, thus Putin hasn't achieved his goal).

The Soviet's realized that they could not keep up with the efficiency of free markets (I suspect this to be a "truth" only the elite realized on both sides, which the West exploited with Reagans policies and then the collapse of the Soviet union in trying to keep up with all the race's between the two countries). Once the Soviet Union realized this they had a shift in their strategy against the West and its allies in that they could not be defeated by brute force; but, rather by a slow process of subverting the masses of their rivals through the vulnerability that any uneducated democracy exposes itself to.

Mind you, this is a slow and tedious process that takes many years as mentioned by the ex-KGB agent mentioned in my previous post.

I would also assume that with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the utter failure of its socio-economic policies, we don't have anything to point towards in saying something like "Hey, look at how bad those guys have it in comparison to us!"...

So, anyway the slow and tedious process of subverting a public to your way of thinking can be negated by educating the public about the past, which is desperately needed in my opinion in the West and other countries.

I'm going to try and simplify my question to a more simple one pertaining as to whether Godel's Incompleteness Theorems negates the possibility of constructing a universal Turing machine that would be capable of computing all known physical laws. Or am I running in circles in trying to state that all physical laws can be proven to be true (computable or replicable?). I mean, the act of a computer able enough to simulate them, would be sufficient evidence despite not being able to verify them from within such a system.

If anyone want's to take a stab at it here, then by all means.

So, what I am getting at is what you can ask.

My main point is that how can we know for certain that the MWI is actual/real/valid/.../true if the only practical means of verifying it is via trying to simulate the laws of the universe via the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle, which itself can't be known to be true?

What's even more damning is that Godel showed that even if the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle is by some means true, then even if one were to create such a sophisticated logical Turing Machine, then even then we would not be able to know whether halting problems (physical phenomena taking place within such a machine) are deterministic (via computational means) or not.

It's kinda like standing on a rug and pulling at it at the same time.

I actually think it's more to do with the years of subversion Russia has been mounting against the U.S and its allies finally showing results. I don't know if you've seen this; but, it's summarized neatly by a former KGB agent. Add the recent advent of the internet (and that I consider Russia as a dominant supplier of subversion tactics via it) and their propaganda reaches more people than ever before.

So, the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle can never be known to be true. Thus, we don't know if we can simulate Everittian QM and know it is deterministic at the same time.

Not sure why you think that significant. — tom

This is an issue because given any sufficiently sophisticated universal computing device there will be "truths" or what can be called manifest physical laws (through mathematics, e.g in Hilbert Space) that can't be proven to be true.

This is essentially putting a thorn via Godel's Incompleteness Theorems into the validity of the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle. I don't know if you see the link there yet or if I haven't made the causal link sufficiently clear.

If you want to take this line of reasoning as far as possible, then this conundrum extends all the way to ANY physical law, in that we can never be certain of it being true in all circumstances. Even in a deterministic universe via Everttian QM, we could have a computer that will never be able to tell us that every Entscheidungsproblem will be able to be resolved in a deterministic manner.

I suppose the crux of my issues in asking these questions is how do you prove the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle?

If no physical law can be proven, then doesn't that mean that physics will always be incomplete? In other words, you can have a supposed infinite amount of degrees of freedom and never accurately model a phenomena due to that.

For example that some events within a simulated universe can be unintelligible. Or maybe that there are emergent phenomena within a universe that can't be explained from within the system itself.

I'll have to skim Tegmark's philosophy on the matter and get back to you with some actual arguments or theories of his. His multiverse philosophy get's complicated; yet, intelligible fast.

IF that were the case, then what has Godel have to do with it?

But it's not the case. — tom

But, that is the case, because any formal system relies on mathematics and logic to rationalize it.

For the matter Tegmark's ultimate dimension of the multiverse is literally mathematics with the wavefunction existing in N dimensions of Hilbert space.

Well if physics is mathematics manifest in nature, then a computer modeling such a mathematical construct would have to face with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also? That's at least how I understand the issue.

There is one way to answer this pertinent question. If every physical law is computable, then we can recreate reality (on a much smaller scale) here on earth...
— Question

We know that every physical law is computable, and that any future law will be too. This is called the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (not to be confused with the Church-Turing Thesis).

Even a fairly rudimentary quantum computer will have the sheer capacity to simulate billions of visible universes simultaneously. Programming it to do so, is another matter of course.

And Godel's Incompleteness Theorem certainly comes into play here.
— Question

Pretty sure it doesn't. — tom

Let me elaborate my reasoning. Let's say that some sufficiently complex computer of whatever origin is designed to simulate all the physical laws of the universe. Now, keeping Godels Incompleteness Theorem in mind we have a problem of affirming that every outcome of such a computer is determinate. How does a computer of such sort prove its own consistency in modeling deterministic behavior?

Stoics are machines.

Therefore, become a Stoic.

It's my opinion based on my rather superficial understanding of evolutionary game theory that altruism and cooperation are always the better options in the long run than the rancid shit people like Kissinger (or rather Dr. Strangelove) pulled off in the Middle East.

manifested from what — apokrisis

There is one way to answer this pertinent question. If every physical law is computable, then we can recreate reality (on a much smaller scale) here on earth...

And Godel's Incompleteness Theorem certainly comes into play here. How? Still working on it...

If the wavefunction exists as a mathematical conception existing in Hilbert space, then I am compelled to agree with Tegmark's belief that reality is mathematics manifest. I find it hard to think otherwise.

Thank you, I think I understand now. One last question that is on my mind. Does Everettian QM obey causality? And if not what determines the evolution of the wavefunction?