On 31 May 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 May 2017 18:39, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
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.
ISTM then that there's a consequence here for the comp theory. The
original idea, which the MGA sets out finally to refute or at least
render implausible (assuming we haven't already excised it by Occam)
is that consciousness supervenes on *physical implementation* of
classical computation. Assuming we don't thereby choose to reject
comp a la Maudlin, the consequence is the notorious reversal. But on
the basis of the above, it would seem that the underlying assumption
that consciousness supervenes on classical computation per se might
itself be at issue. This would in turn imply that CTM - the theory
that consciousness is in principle invariant to an adequate
(classical) digital substitution -
(classical, or quantum, but immaterial, unless we are special analog
machine whose functionning requires actual infinities, but then comp
is false).
may ultimately be untenable. So would we then need to think in terms
of a quantum-computational substitution?
The notion of computation is a classical notion. Even "quantum
computation" is defined by using the notion of classical computation.
What happens is that consciousness supervene on all computations,
quantum, classical. Then, and this is true for all (Löbian) universal
numbers (a class of beings far larger than the human), the observable
obeys the quantum logic, so that the locally physically (first person
plural) implementable computations are *all* quantum, independenly of
the fact that our substitution level is below or not some treshold
making us able to exploit, or not, the quantum interference in our
thought process.
Bruno
David
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.
--
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.
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.
