From Dave’s possible perspective then, what if there is a math computer science basis for finding a nonparsimonious axiom-like origin, yet more predictive thing than the schroedinger equation and its MWI and quantum superposition products from occams
razor? This could be an MWI testing technology.

What happens to MWI if its parsimonious basis is one of many equally explanatory math statements consistent with actual measurments:What if software generates a million alternate, fully explanatory, testable (mid-range of distribution math sort-based
descriptive) explanations, then MWI parsimony thus perceived at 219 AD as being likely, would be one of a million and one predictive eqaution systems. A science person might be able to say if you increase the state space from one equational description
to a million different equational descriptions, does any one particular thing at the state space have highest likelihood of being the actual thing? Going with the alluring and possibly slightly overconvenient idea that there might be a most actual out
of the million and one equations, It could be a different one than schreodinger’s equation

example: muliply everything at schoedinger’s equation with .5 then double it after you plug in the numbers, it is more elaborate, less parsimonius, but it has the same predictive ability.

The thing is though that various instances of the million predictive equations could do testable yet unparsimonious stuff: it ( adiffrent solution) might take a different amount of shannon information to represent, or require the universe to have
integers, or generate a causally specific, thus one result ignorable “two solutions simultaneously, at the actual measured universe just one solution is actually what it is”, yet perhaps the non-descriptive extra solution has some discernable value,
like at N^4 = 32, the version where N is negative or positive, you might learn from the extra solution that the other solution is less than 40 and more than 10, even though the actual accurate measurable thing is N=2 rather than -2.

One of the benefits of going to computer science sorting algorithms compared with: (base to higher development) from axiom elaboration is that stuff from the middle might sometimes be easier to test hypothesis of, that is technology might sometimes be
awesome at testing hypothesis from the middle of the sort algorithm. So there could be entire new branches of experiment creation based around the math of nonparsimonious descriptions generating predictive results that match what is measured.

(two flip branched string)

having ideas about eigenvalues, at an actual matrix, and the metaphor version with the car that moves forwards being the persisting thing that causes people to keep thinking it is car, even though you swap out all the parts,

Also, another eigenvalue thing is the math part where functions having some common feature can swap for each other and have the eigenvalue remain, notably then along with the matrix generation of and math rules that generate eigenvalues; there is an
eigenvalue manipulability of “essence” (you could apply math transformations and equations to platonism), so, at a “swap all the parts, which or where is the car; you still have carness” metaphor that is also describable as a math parsimonious
description as an eigenvalue, then at the “carness” a person can even swap out some of the thingness (platonically or noun/function unique parts) as component systems: “carness” is still a voluntary person visitable thing that moves forward even
if you replace a wankel engine with a straight 8)
So, then an eigenvalue statement of consciousness would have mathematical basis for not just swapping out all the parts, but replacing entire component systems, as long as the

Can you run an eigenvalue backwards, that is describe the eigenvalue of a matrice you think of as ok and something you like, then perhaps have software generate a million different numbers or functions to put in the matrix array that will generate the
same eigenvalue? If so, and if hypothesis and math unfoldements from probing conscious being are tested and predictive, then this could inform people that like creating technology of artificial sentience. So rather than nondistinguishability from a
human, an AI could have persisting eigenvalue as a human, as well as high fidelity to all the eigenvalues math unfoldements. That might be deeper or thicker than just imitating a human really well.

What is the simplest eigenvalue generator: some things. Like literally a set. That’s it. Then you also have to have some sort of thing to run the matrix math on.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)