Bruno,
I've read into step 5 (again) in your SANE04 paper.
(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and
Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
But I have a question in sub-hypothesis (3) of your initial assumptions...
"Definition: Classical Digital mechanism, or Classical Computationalism, or just comp, is the conjunction of the following three sub-hypotheses:
(1) yes doctor..
(2) Church thesis...
3) Arithmetical Realism (AR). This is the assumption that arithmetical proposition, like “1+1=2,” or Goldbach conjecture, or the inexistence of a bigger prime, or the statement that some digital machine will stop, or any Boolean formula bearing on numbers, are true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if that exists), etc. It is a version of Platonism limited at least to arithmetical truth. It should not be confused with the much stronger Pythagorean form of AR, AR+, which asserts that only natural numbers exist together with their nameable relations: all the rest being derivative from those relations."
What I question or wonder about is where you say, "(...stuff bearing on numbers... is true) --- independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe...".
Does "independently" have a special ~philosophical meaning? I mean, I sort of get that it appears you are assuming arithmetical widgets are like in a separate category, and even though I may have my own unfamiliarity with the notion, when I consider the "independently..." I envision a rather strong boundary or separation. Thus, where you (later or in other posts) make references to your Arithmetical Realism having or imbued with human traits and features such as: 1pp, 3pp, dreaming, knowing... to me it appears that you are blurring or violating your own stated initial conditions.
Is it that you find patterns in Arithmetical Realisms in number relations, and then later or invisibly in your logic rules, you fabricate analogies or "likenesses" where you apply/associate the ~human features and traits as being signaled by the various number patterns?
And, if so, how is that not violating the "independently..." constraint?
Can you please clarify and explain?
Secondly, your various guided visualizations on "teleportation" in the steps I've read so far, remind me of the "old days" a few decades ago before and during the "Reagan years" of "remote/distance viewing experiences" I used to have/imagine, usually under certain chemical/intentional conditions. Quite fanciful and, I suppose, somewhat psychotic had I taken them more seriously. Certainly, unverified/unverifiable (except perhaps possibly only in one case) and wildly 1pp subjective ~out of control and multiple-perspective -- which might be akin to your "copying" operation prior to teleporting, but maintaining a ~link, somewhat to each. In that experience/imagination scenario, initially the ~mechanism/pathway was in part via TV/radio/microwave/satellite/air traffic control communications channels, and, seemed quite important "to folks" I ~observed in co-linked control/monitoring rooms... All, quite imaginative. After a while, in part since I couldn't figure out how to collect any back pay for services rendered, I got therapy for some underlying emotional tensions, became a bit more productive and retired from the "service" - turned away from that activity. The guided imagery of your teleportation steps, though, seems quite familiar or along similar lines, except for being less along the typical "wires and waves through walls" ~schizophrenic ideation.
