On 26 Sep 2014, at 10:14, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 03:17:07AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au
>
wrote:
Well done for being obtuse! The platonically malleable urstuff is
usually taken to be integer arithmetic, although any system
capable of
universal computation will do, such as Bruno's combinators
example.
You appear to be making the dog chase its tail.
?
But conscious does not supervene on that, for the reasons
given in my paper, but rather on sheaves of computations that make
it
up, by assumption of COMP.
Not in your sense of requiring physical, concrete realizations: why
do we
need those?
We don't, if by "concrete" you mean what Bruno means by it.
What are they and how do we avoid attributing originality to
all your doppelgangers distributed in UD if such is given?
originality?
It also must supervene on the emergent
phenomenal physics that arises. That is a raw empirical fact that no
pussy-footing around can eliminate.
The MGA demonstrates the
fundamental contradiction between COMP and physical supervenience
in a
non-robust universe, consequently the only way to save COMP is for
the
universe to be robust.
You pretend that this is common sense. That's much less clear to me.
This stuff is far from common sense. It is a simple matter of logic,
however.
If you accept the empirical fact of physical supervenience (as I do,
and indeed also have arguments for why it must be so - see the Occam
Catastrophe discussion in my book), then the fact that the MGA forces
a contradiction between physical supervenience and computational
supervenience in a non-robust universe really just says there is a
choice: either we live in a robust universe, or computationalism is
false. The fact that we additionally observe quantum phenomena really
supports the idea we live in a robust universe. In a non-robust
universe, quantum phenomena is just weird.
Additionally, in a robust universe, the Church-Turing thesis tells us
that physics we supervene on must be emergent from the properties of
universal systems (Bruno's reversal result). Thus the matter we
supervene
on cannot be "primitive". The primitive urstuff is something else
entirely - the arithmetic of integers, perhaps, as Bruno suggests -
but not matter as we know it.
I would say that there is no primitive urstuff at all, nor any
physical universe, robust or not.
But the laws of the observable (that of the FPI-probability one, with
the stipulation of truth and/or/consistency, that is []p & <>p (& p))
are the same, if you define the [] in PA or in Combinatory-logic
+induction.
You may think robust universes are baroque, but I don't. Infinite,
symmetrical ensembles of universes are simpler from an information
theoretic perspective than specific finite instances. This is
ultimately the strongest argument in favour of platonism.
But there is a sense that nature doesn't have to play by our
rules. Maybe we really do live in a non-robust universe. If so, we
cannot have our COMP and eat it.
I don't see how stating that UD (straight, not shaken or stirred with
Quantum computer material stuff actualizing) is too cumbersome to
realize
physically wherever it is that we are,
ie assuming non-robustness (which IMHO is virtually equivalent to
assuming ultrafinitism - like Norm Wildberger's position).
gives you convincing leverage
concerning consciousness relating to experiential outcome of some A/B
experiment, as the relation of selection is invariant for delays and
locations of reconstitution.
It demonstrates an inconsistency between physical supervenience and
computational supervenience, notably that physical supervenience
entails that certain very simple computations, such as the replaying
of a recording, will be conscious.
This only works in a non-robust universe, however, a point that is
often overlooked in treatments of this.
It seems to me that the MGA makes the robust/non-robustness
irrelevant. It is enough that elementary arithmetic, or the
combinators, is a robust reality.
The ultrafinitist physicalism has still to endow his "existing matter"
with magical non-Turing emulable to make its reality doing the
selection it seems to me.
Bruno
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
