On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > On 2/28/2012 3:35 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/28/2012 10:46 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When we are dreaming we are in a higher level relative >>>>> emulation (all UMs can do that). >>>> >>>> That's confusing. I find it hard to believe a bacteria can dream. The >>>> UM implemented by a bacteria could *potentially* run any program, but >>>> it is *actually* running the bacteria program. To suggest that >>>> bacteria (e.g. one of the class of "all UMs") can dream by virtue of >>>> being definable as a UM generates more confusion than clarity. >>>> >>>> Put another way, if a particularly instantiated UM possesses the >>>> ability to dream (to imagine), then that says something non-trivial >>>> about the constitution of that UM's cognitive architecture. >>>> >>>> Terren >>>> >>> Hi Terren, >>> >>> If a bacterium is a physical system capable of implementing a >>> universal >>> Turing machine aka the particular bacteria's program, then Bruno's >>> argument >>> shows that it will necessarily be able to dream, for what are dreams if >>> not >>> alternative TMs running on the same hardware via dovetailing? >>> >>> Onward! >>> >>> Stephen >> >> Dreaming in the context of Bruno's remark means that the running of a >> single program could result in alternate 1p realities being >> constructed... not that multiple programs could be run in the UM. At >> least, that's how I interpret it. > > > Dear Terren, > > How does the running of a single program generate different content (in > the sense that the program is equivalent to a virtual reality generator) > unless it is a dovetailing of many programs? Is this how you get a many = > one situation for programs? This makes no sense. AFAIK, 1 = 1, many = many. > many =/= one. Or is my mathematical knowledge faulty?
I think first you have to answer how a single program generates a single 1p reality. There is no consensus yet on how to do this, although there are theories. But let's say you have a working theory of how a program can generate a 1p reality. Then you can modify that program to generate additional realities simultaneously. Check out this incredible story of a ragtime piano player named Bob Milne who can imagine up to four orchestras playing music at the same time. Neuroscientists verified his abilities. http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/. This takes no effort for him and the music as it is playing in his head does not "clash". >> A bacteria is a universal machine in that it can potentially run any >> program. However, bacteria as they appear to us run specific programs >> (as selected by evolution). Their instantiation as such is a stable >> measure relative to us - the shared 1p plural reality. Bacteria that >> run programs capable of dreaming (as above), while possible, would >> probably count as white rabbits. >> >> Terren >> > > Could you tell me this explanation in your own words, particularly what > "the shared 1p plural reality" is. I truly do not comprehend this concept as > you are using it here. How is 1p content sharable by a plurality of > entities? AFAIK, any experiencial content that is "sharable" by a plurality > is 3p, in other worlds content that we all agree on as being "real" and > having such and such properties is the definition of "objective reality". I know Bruno already answered this but I will attempt it too. The physics and in general the world we observe is the stable measure of realities generated by the UD that include the computational state we are currently in. Since each of these traces in the UD contains "me", each "me" is sharing the experience of each reality. They are all 1p experiences, and yet they are all shared by each version of me being traced by the UD. When it comes to others, you are correct, that what is sharable must be negotiated through language. I don't think btw the result of that shared process is necessarily "objective reality", I think a more accurate phrase would be either "working objective reality" (as in, we proceed *as if* there is an objective reality) or perhaps "intersubjective reality". I'm guessing that is why you used scared quotes around it... Terren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
