On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:10, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> In some post you have acknowledge that consciousness is not
something located in a brain.
I don't even know what the location of a consciousness even means.
Good.
> Two identical brains in different space-time locations will
determine (assuming computationalism, c, hereafter to be short) the
same consciousness.
Agreed.
> A universal machine cannot distinguish a "physical reality" (and
what that means?)
I don't know what that means.
> from an arithmetical reality,
Agreed.
Nice. But then you might be OK with the idea that our relevant
computational states are distributed in infinitely many arithmetical
relations, and that we differentiate along the relation where we get
different inputs.
> so the consciousness (the token consciousness "here and now" of
someone) is related to all number relations defining a genuine
computation
Well... consciousness certainly has something to do with
relationships, but whether it's a relationship between numbers or
between something else I'm not sure. Numbers can describe a
relationship between many different types of things, but to produce
consciousness it could be that the relationship must be between
matter,
What would that mean?
It could men that
1) the substitution level was not low enough, like if some genuine
information transfer between some gluons, or quarks in our protons
played some role. Then we say to the doctor "try again".
2) The substitution level is infinitely low, but then computationalism
is false.
in particular between neurons or their electronic counterpart. The
fact that a computer program printed on a paper and sitting in a
desk drawer can't do anything until it is implemented in a certain
arrangement of matter that we call a "computer" makes me think that
this may be the case.
But arithmetic realizes both the programs, relatively to universal
numbers, or relatively to just the laws of addition and multiplication
(which are Turing-complete).
To say that it has to be implemented in physics, seems like saying
that there is one universal machine, the physical equations, which
has that magic ability that the conscious computation are "really"
conscious. But then the physical equation needs something a bit
magical, and non Turing emulable, and different from the non
computable statististics on all computations going through my states.
> Aristotle makes the inevitable errors of the pionniers,
Aristotle made the errors of a fool, not only did he think he was
too good to perform experiments he didn't even realize that some of
his ideas, like the one about heavy objects falling faster than
light ones, led to a logical contradiction. It's hard to think of
one his theories that was even approximately true and today physics
would be more advanced than it is if Aristotle had never been born.
Hmm...
> and get corrected on the physical level, not on the metaphysical
level
Being a metaphysician is easy, being a good physicist is not.
No. Being a non serious metaphysician is easy. Being a serious
metaphysician, like Einstein in his EPR paper, is difficult. Even for
someone like Einstein, or Gödel. Without John Bell, most scientists
would still disqualified the EPR paper as "philosophy", where on the
contrary, Einstein saw the difficulty, and Bell use the EPR paper as a
seed to show that such a "philosophy" could be tested experiementally.
>> As Niels Bohr, the greatest physicist of the 20th century after
Einstein,
> You astonish me. I would reserve my judgment on a guy who refuse
to even talk with Everett
That was around 1960 when Bohr was a old man, his most important
work was done between 1910 and 1930.
> I think the quantum wave collapse is nonsense.
Forget its collapse, without Bohr we wouldn't even know about the
quantum wave;
It has been discovered by De Broglie, and it is very easy actually (to
guess f(x,t) = e^iH(x,t) and its linear combination). Then it was not
that difficult to guess the equation of Schroedinger: -ihdf/dt = Hf.
Bohr get the atom, but it is de Broglie wave around the atom which
explained the orbitals, and the Planck levels of energy for the
electron, which at that time was believed only for the photon.
Well, anyway, let us discuss things, and not person.
although his name wasn't on the original paper Bohr was without a
doubt the greatest teacher of quantum mechanics who ever lived and
he was extraordinarily generous in giving away his good ideas to his
students.
> You don't like Aristotle, but for a Platonist QM is rather
natural, if not obvious.
Then why didn't Plato discover Quantum Mechanics 2500 years ago?
Because no sane person would propose such a crazy idea if they
weren't forced to do so by the crazy outcome of certain experiments.
Plato got the most crazy idea of all time: the idea that perhaps
reality is not what we see. It is at the origin of science and
religion, with science = the tool, and religion the goal.
Unfortunately we have separate them, and science took a look of pseudo-
religion (in the metaphysical domain) and religion took the look of
political power having no genuine relation with the original
theological idea: to unify all branches of knowledge, including the
mystical one, which "are in our head".
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
