On 03 Oct 2015, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/10/2015 1:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Oct 2015, at 06:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
"Your" consciousness? Your series of questions above all involve a
physical transfer of information, in which case light cones are
relevant, because there can be no physical transfer of information
from you now to a point outside your future light cone. If there
is a purported copy of you outside your past and future light
cones, then there is no way that it can be verified that it is
actually a copy. So the question is purely hypothetical, without
operational content.
The point is that the copy might see the difference, like observing
the start from a different view points allowing the conclusion that
it has been copied outside its light cone.
If the copy is to "see a difference" then there must have been
information transfer outside the light cone.
Assuming your non-comp hypothesis, you are right.
But assuming the brain is emulable at some finitely describable level,
then there is no need of information transfer. Information selection
is enough.
I think we agree on many things, Bruce. You assume materialism and non-
computationalism.
As scientists, we don't know the truth, all right. I study the
consequence of the computationalist assumptions, and I do think nature
provides evidences of its origin in the laws of the universal machines
dreams (sigma_1 sentences as seen from a person points of view,
technically: what the 8 "hypostases" describe).
This is physically impossible.
Honestly, even with non-comp, that is an open problem. Even if I am
actually infinite, there might be a non null possibility that "I" am
copying by other actually infinite beings.
If you believe that you are an infinite being (as you basically need
for having non-comp), you still obeys the laws of the infinite beings,
and they too are confronted to even higher infinities.
After Cantor, the infinite might not be usable to escape the self-
multiplicity.
And if comp allows such information transfer, then comp is disproved
by the observed physics.
It does not allow that transfer of information. But comp allow the
same information to reappear in different space-time, or even realm
(like arithmetical/physical) and it disallow the person supported by a
universal number to distinguish that reality from an emulation of that
reality by another universal number. So below our substitution level
things behave like if they belonged to different computations: we get
a problem of statistics on the (terminating) computations. The measure
one is modeled by the machine's view defined by the intensional
variant of the logic of self-reference (from Gödel, Löb, Solovay, ...).
More simply, by remembering my dreams (in which I often try to
convince myself that I am not dreaming) I conclude that a mechanism
can make me believe in realities, and then, by Gödel and Turing,
Church's work, it is well known (although expressed differently) that
those mechanism, all of them actually, are emulated in a tiny part of
the arithmetical reality. The logical emergence of the physical laws
has a reason and get constraint by the possible experience of the
soul of the universal Turing machine, with soul, a Theaetetus'
intensional variant of formal or representable consistency/provability.
The advantage is that we get the sharable quanta (if we get them, OK,
progress have been made) but also we get the non sharable, sometime
non describable, qualia. We avoid the materialist elimination of the
person, by a simple definition of the person, in arithmetic, and stay
rationalist in abandoning only a disputable fact: the ontological
character of the physical).
With computationalism, to put it roughly, the physical becomes the
border of the (sigma_1) arithmetical seen from inside.
The real question: why the exceptional groups, and why groups anyway?
Or is the number 24 really the master of gravitation-space-time?
There are progresses in quantum logic, so if the comp physic's logic
get close enough to those quantum logic, the idea to derive the
physical reality theory from the mind of the universal machine might
become more palpable in our normal futures. At least as a natural
program to do.
I can only hope you are not dogmatic about (weak) materialism and/or
physicalism.
Personally I love physics so much that I would be pleased it can be
explained in terms of numbers (meaning number relations and limits on
number relations made, or not, by numbers or limits of number
relations).
Call me an atheist. I don't believe in a real physical universe as
long as there are no evidence. I give tools to test this in the
computationalsit frame, and thanks to QM, it fits well, formally, but
also intuitively for the open minded many-worlder or everythinger,
having not to much problem with the self-multiplicity issue (the
anguish of the amoeba).
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
