On 30 May 2017, at 17:00, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 May 2017 at 14:48, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 30 May 2017, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
<snip>
Right, I agree with you and Pierz on this. My point was more on what
you address below.
What if the substitution level turns out to be at a higher level than
quantum? E.g. at the level of the neurons and their connections and
activations levels?
That would enlarge the uncertainty spectrum on the realities we can
access without losing anything subjective.
A point against, I assume.
Not sure. Perhaps.
It would help the doctor to build the artificial brain.
A point in favour.
Yes. Modulo it helps also the charlatans, the hackers, etc. But that's
part of the price. In the long run, 99% of the treatment of
information might consist in cryptography. Some amount of first person
privacy is needed to get consistent extensions.
It could also make more difficult to justify the smallness of Planck
constant, and to explain why the quantum seems more obviously
present in the micro-states,
Against?
Problematical for the Mechanist.
I would favor the identification of the substitution level with the
lower classical physical state up to the "quantum isolation". I think
this could be proved. It is the level of the molecules, and their most
probable histories. The quantum fuzziness is how our self-description
relatively to the more proable histories appears for the average
Löbian number.
Decoherence would be easier to fight against,
OK
and quantum computing would be more easy to be realized.
How, if the substitution is above the quantum boundary?
Then physics is deflected from the mechanist self-reference. Put it
bluntly: computationalism is refuted or we are in a malevolent
Bostromian simulation (or other number conspiracies. May be, if the
Riemann hypothesis is false, ...
Of course, it can depend to what you consider to need to survive. The
level of substitution is defined, not for the survival, but for the
perfect survival. Above that level, you will continue to survive, but
-either you will be aware of a defect, from a permanent headache to
anything you can imagine, or not.
- Or there will be a defect (observable by a third person, or not).
Exemple: the first classical teleported human, who said after the
experience : "it is a total success, it is a total success, it is a
total success, it is a total success, it is a total success, it is
a total success, it is a total success, it is a total success, it
is a total success, it is a total success, it is a total success,
it is a total success, it is a total success, it is a total
success, it is a total success, it is a total success, ...
And continue to say so in an asylum. Did he survived?
Above the level, you lost things. Obviously, with a digital
*electronical* neural net, you would lost the experience of cannabis,
alcohol, salvia, tobacco, until you find the apps on the net,
emulating the chemical level information. Neurology is fundamentals,
including the swarm neural play, but each neuron is a complex chemical
factory, and cells communicates mainly by molecules, even when they
get the cable (neurons).
This makes me think that the quantum level is boundary of the
substitution level.
I don't follow all of the above. Do you mean a boundary above
which, or below which, a plausible substitution might be made?
By high level, I mean a vulgar approximation of the brain/body could
be made, with few mega on the disk.
By low level, I mean an ultra-precise description of a big generalized
brain, like the brain + a part of the environment described by the
quantum superstring with 10^100 decimals. You will need a big disk.
Normally the relative substitution level determine the boundaries
between the classical boolean mind and the quantum observable.
But with QM without collapse, the level is not a question of micro/
macro, but of independence between computations, in sense which can be
described by using the modal logics.
In the math part, the level is in the choice of the box, the beweisbar
provability predicate. The theology is invariant for all the sound
(mechanical, or weakenings) extensions. But no machines can rationally
justifies any substitution level, and it is a bit like a private matter.
If the brain exploits the quantum weirdness, it means that we can
extracts information from the statistical measure on all computations
below our substitution. That possibility is independent of the level,
and the whole of the apparent matter exploits this, and should
entirely emerge from this ...
Here I agree with Bohr, if you define the Macroscopic by the Boolean
laws of thought level, where the quantum theory is made. We can see
only the border of the mind, and that does not obey to classical logic.
The Everett-quantum should be the first person *plural* substitution
level, the private quale level might be lower. I am not sure. What
makes things nicer and harder is that we get three "physical
hypostases". PA told us, admitting Plato's definition, that there are
three physics. Three multiverses.
Eventually we are the chooser of the box/body but the points of view
are logically implied. They all follows from incompleteness.
Bruno
David
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.