When the universe will end is '17 is prime' still true ? Me winning the lotery is a WR event... I play lotery, I do not win therefore no one wins... It's basically your argument about WR.
2008/8/13 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On 13 Aug, 21:05, "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/8/13 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >> Sure, why one then ? >> >> > It would be the smallest number that fits the facts. >> >> Which facts ? > > The observed ones. You're talking about the microscopic quantum world ? >> >> >> >> > it is not simpler on the "entity" version of O's R, and it does >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> > fit the evidence because of the WR problem. >> >> >> >> >> Yes but I see 'real switch' problem as equally problematic in front >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> the WR problem. >> >> >> >> > I don't see that. You need to explain. Single-worlders can "switch >> >> >> > off" WR's. >> >> >> >> Yes by saying it's a no problem... I can say MW can "switch off" WR as >> >> >> easily. But we just make a step back and forth. >> >> >> > That is no explanation. Single worlders -- and physical many >> >> > worlders-- >> >> > get rid of WR universes by saying they do no exist at all. >> >> >> > Now: don't tell me *that* mathematical may worlders can do >> >> > the same, tell me how. >> >> >> By saying they exists but you're not in the class of observer capable >> >> of experiencing them (or experiencing them for a long stable period of >> >> time...), >> >> >> and as a RSSA proponents, next states probabilities are >> >> relative to current state... I could also say that you experience only >> >> one world/history (from your point of view of course) then speaking >> >> why you're not in these particular WR universes/histories is because >> >> you're not (it sounds like your 'do not exist at all' no ? :) >> >> > A lot of complicated hypotheses have been put forward on the >> > MMW side. What does that buy you? Ontological complexity combined >> > with >> > theoretical complexity. >> >> I see real complexity in asserting the single universe. > > Don't just see it, explain it. I already did, one universe put more constraint because of its unicity than infinitely many... >> >> >> >> >> No you devise this in 2 parts, I think only the abstract world is >> >> >> >> >> ontologically primary. >> >> >> >> >> > That is your conclusions. You cannot assume it in order to >> >> >> >> > argue for it. >> >> >> >> >> I do not assume them. >> >> >> >> > Then you need some other way of getting your multiple instantiations. >> >> >> >> Well I believe (note the word) that we (the mind) are a computation >> >> >> and as such I believe in strong AI, such that we will do conscious >> >> >> digital entities... Either these entities will be truly conscious (and >> >> >> it is possible for them to be conscious as we have assume that >> >> >> consciousness is a computational process) or they won't, if they won't >> >> >> and never will be conscious, it is only possible if contrary to the >> >> >> assumption, consciousness is not (only) a computational process. Now >> >> >> if consciousness is a computational process and we build an AI (I >> >> >> don't see how we couldn't if consciousness is a computation, what >> >> >> could prevent it ?) then here you are with multiple implementations. >> >> >> > And if we don't build an AI, here you are without them. (And with >> >> > computationalism still true, and without any subjective >> >> > indeterminacy). >> >> >> If it is a computation explain why we wouldn't with logical >> >> argument... if the world is not destroyed tomorrow and consciousness >> >> is a computational process then we'll build AI.... >> >> > There is no reason to build and AI duplicate of everybody, >> > and there is no reason to single out me. So this is another >> > appeal to coincidence. >> >> i've never said that and that's not the point. This AI could be >> duplicated and run in multiple instance when does she die ? when you >> pull the last plug of the last computer running it ? by pulling out >> all devices capable of running it ? by destroying the whole everything >> ? > > If you make a chain of assumptions --how willing people are to build > AIs, how able they are, how long the universe will support such > activities-- > then you can make the AI hypothesis look likely relative to those > assumptions. > But there is no necessity there. Anyone can evade the argument by > rejecting the > assumptions. It's basically just speculation. The necessity is this... either it's possible or not possible at all, if it's possible it will be done. Somewhere in some time in the multi/universe. >> >>you must suppose >> >> either >> >> 1) the end of the world before we do it >> >> 2) or the never ever AI for unknown reason even if it is possible >> >> because the mind is a computational process >> >> 3) or the mind is not a computational process (or in part but >> >> dependant on a non computational/non emulable process like an oracle >> >> or your substance for example).. >> >> > Or 4) We build an AI and it isn;t me. Why shoudl it be? The odds >> > are billions to one. >> >> I've never said that and it's not the point if it is you, me, Georges >> Bush or Popeye... it's about consciousness. > > Nothing follows for me if someone builds and AI of someone other than > me. > If I am never duplicated, I suffer from no indeterminacy, and no issue > of many > worlds arises.I can > quite justifiably regard myself as a single individual in a single > reality. That follows that if mind is a computation it is a computation :D... that means it exists like any mathematical truth that exists for ever... or do you mean a number exists only if someone composed of real switch particles can think of it ? and when the unirvese will end will 1 have 2 as successor ? Regards, Quentin Anciaux -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---