Re: Can if life effect cosmic development and is a supertask possable?

On 25 Jun 2013, at 15:50, john wrote:

>
>
> --- In [email protected], Bruno Marchal  
> <marchal@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 16 Jun 2013, at 16:41, john wrote:
> >
> > > Can life or any physical action effect the future outcome of the
> > > universe's physical development.
> > >
> > > Could life drastically change the course of the universe and stop
> > > the heat death.
> > >
> > > I do think life (intelligence) can change many things but can life
> > > steer the universe into a different end? Is a supertask impossible?
> > >
> > Assuming such a universe exist, you might need supermoney, and ...
> > Superman.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have just barely grasped "background independence" and it has  made
> > > me more likely to accept things happening beyond human conception
> > > and reality being much larger since everything is a process.  With is
> > > saying to me everything is software there is no hardware.
> > >
> > This follows logically (+occam) from the computationalist theory of
> > mind. It makes physical reality appears from number relations, seen
> > from the relative first person point of view.
> >
> > Arithmetic contains a web of dreams in which we are infinitely
> > distributed, and the question of knowing if this defined an unique
> > multiverse, or a cluster of multiverses, or something more  complex, is
> > open (hard math).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Lastly is there any physical transformation or physical processes
> > > that cannot be visually represented? I have been thinking about   this
> > > for a long time.
> > >
> > That question is unclear. We can always visualize partially anything
> > we point too. Then we know that in arithmetic we have already the  non
> > computable, the non provable, the non definable, and if you define
> > enough well what you mean by "visually representable" you can bet  that
> > there will be infinities of non visually representable things.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >
>
> > " That question is unclear. We can always visualize partially  anything "
>
> Very delicate objects that cannot be seen (measured) ever in its true
> form without distortion. Despite this could we use round about ways
> to actually see them (in particular) with algorithms alone?
>

"seeing" seems to me to be a relation between a universal machine and  
some possible other universal machine (like a brain and some possible  
universe).

When we see, we "see" only what our brain produce. Indeed we can even  
see objects which are not there, like when we have an an hallucination.





>
> Let the system evolve and measure some other exterior part effected by
> what is being measured. If that is that possible then what would
> that say about reality as a whole if you can in a sense "hack" the  
> system.
>
We will wake up, in some relative sense, going from an illusion to  
another one, but that's the only way we can approach truth, by being  
less deluded. We can't observe truth.




>
> what I mean by this is to use the algorithm as a wall to bounce data
> off it to predict a secondary phenomenon to a degree that would be
> other wise imposable, then reverse engineer that data to see what you
> could not see normally.
>
I think we do that all the time. It is close to Helmholtz theory of  
perception.



>
> Also I stand by original question and would like to upgrade it to
> this; could a CGI film correctly represent the best interpretation of
> the Multiverse visually.
>
> Is the hole Multiverse a process you can
> create an approximate object representation of? For some reason I  
> see it as like an apple with two polls with two ends and the inside  
> is pure noise.
>
> Can we point to the multiverse.
>
If we are Turing emulable machines, then the multiverse is what  
emerges from a statistics on all possible machine's dreams. Those  
exists provably in tiny fragment of elementary arithmetic.
It is an open question today if this leads to 0, 1, 2, n, infinities  
of universes, mutliverses, etc.

Well, that's what I think. Everett and Deustch uses the  
computationalist theory, but don't push its logic far enough. It leads  
to a more Platonic conception of reality, where the physical reality  
is the border of something vaster (and yet arithmetical).

Bruno





>
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]