On 4 August 2016 at 11:16, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On 8/3/2016 5:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 3 August 2016 at 16:02, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/2/2016 10:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/2/2016 3:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/2/2016 6:15 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's not that it can't, but rather that it doesn't, and if it does >>>>> then that would require some extra physical explanation, a radio link >>>>> between brains or something. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's what I mean by illegitimately appealing to physics while >>>> claiming that physics must be derived from computation of consciousness. >>>> >>> >>> Whatever theory we propose must be consistent with observation. >>> >>> >>> But, "if it does then* that would require some extra physical >>> explanation*, a radio link between brains or something." Is not an >>> observation, it's an assumption that all information transfer must be >>> physical. >>> >> >> There is no convincing evidence for telepathic communication, so a >> theory that predicts it should occur would have to explain why we don't >> observe it. >> >> >> Yes, and physical theories of consciousness do that quite well. But >> computationalist theories of consciousness can't invoke the physics they're >> trying to derive. >> > > Bruno, I believe, proposes that his theory accounts for the universe that > we observe. > > > ISTM his argument is of the form: > > 1) Consciousness is instantiated by certain computation. > 2) All possible computation is realized by a UDA that exists because > arithmetic is true. > 3) Then the conscious thoughts that constitute our experience of a > physical world are among those instantiated by the UDA and the physical > world need not be anything more than threads of those computations that > exhibit the consistent patterns which we explain as an external reality. > > The problem I have with this is that "arithmetic is true" doesn't make > anything, much less a UDA, exist. And the conclusion (3) just brings in > Everett's measure problem amplified to the nth degree. It explains too > much as "existing" and doesn't assign probabilities to anything. So far as > I can tell Bruno is just relying on 1-3 as a "proof" that the physics we > observe MUST BE derived from the UDA. > The problem with (3) is a general problem with multiverses. A single, infinite universe is an example of a multiverse theory, since there will be infinite copies of everything and every possible variation of everything, including your brain and your mind. We live in an orderly world with consistent physical laws. It seems to me that you are suggesting that if everything possible existed then we would not live in such an orderly world, and we would not be able to have coherent thoughts. So the fact that we do have coherent thoughts implies that multiverses cannot exist, and we must live in a finite universe. That seems a lot to conclude from the mere fact that you are able to think. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
