On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", >> starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate: >> >> "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really >> wasn't specific to quantum mechanics at all. Suppose that some future >> technology allows you to be cloned while you're sleeping, and that your two >> copies are placed in rooms numbered 0 and 1 (Figure 8.3). When they wake >> up, they'll both feel that the room number they read is completely >> unpredictable and random. If in the future, it becomes possible for you to >> upload your mind to a computer, then what I'm saying here will feel totally >> obvious and intuitive to you, since cloning yourself will be as easy as >> making a copy of your software. If you repeated the cloning experiment from >> Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in >> almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written >> looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. In other words, >> causal physics will produce the illusion of randomness from your subjective >> viewpoint in any circumstance where you're being cloned. The fundamental >> reason that quantum mechanics appears random even though the wave function >> evolves deterministically is that the Schrodinger equation can evolve a >> wavefunction with a single you into one with clones of you in parallel >> universes. So how does it feel when you get cloned? It feels random! And >> every time something fundamentally random appears to happen to you, which >> couldn't have been predicted even in principle, it's a sign that you've >> been cloned." >> > > While reading, do you get a sense that he points towards how this might > potentially weaken digital physics/functionalism in their strong sense? > I haven't gotten that sense yet, but I am only about half way through. > That digital physics implies comp, which implies vast non computable parts > of reality, which rules out stronger forms of interpreting digital > physics/functionalism? Because in this quoted passage he just references > the teleportation ambiguity, as many have. I'd want to know if he dug a bit > deeper. PGC > > > There are some leaps he seems unwilling to make, like QTI. Yet, if he thinks all mathematical structures exist, and if he believes in the CTM, then shouldn't he also believe every conscious state has at least some computational continuation somewhere in this infinite reality that contains everything? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
