date:20150425



On 25 Apr 2015, at 02:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/24/2015 3:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



2015-04-24 22:33 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/24/2015 5:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was  
Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to  
suggest that consciousness (usually associated with brain  
function) is Turing emulable. If you find at the end or your chain  
of reasoning that consciousness isn't computable (not Turing  
emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a contradiction.


ISTM, that's because you conflate the machinery (iow: the brain or  
a computer program running on a physical computer) necessary for  
consciousness to be able to manifest itself relatively to an  
environment and consciousness itself.


How do we know the two are separable?  What is consciousness that  
can't manifest itself?  The environment (the body?) isn't another  
sentient being that can recognize the consciousness...is it?


The thing is, under computationalism hypothesis, there are an  
infinity of valid implementations of a particular conscious moment,  
so consciousness itself is superverning on all of them,


Does that mean each of them or does it mean the completed infinity  
of them?  And what is a conscious moment?  Is it just a state of a  
Turing machine implementing all these computations, or is it a long  
sequence of states.


assuming the brain is turing emulable, any implementation of it is  
valid, and there are an infinity of equivalent implementations such  
as you have to make a distinction of a particular implementation of  
that conscious moment and the consciousness itself.


Why?  Is it because the different implementations will diverge after  
this particular state and will instantiate different conscious  
states.  I don't see how there can be a concept of consciousness  
itself or a consciousness in this model.  Consciousness is just a  
sequence of states (each which happen to be realized infinitely many  
times).


Consciousness is 1p, and a sequence of states is 3p, so they can't be  
equal. Consciousness is more like a sequence of states related to a  
possible reality, and consciousness is more like a semantical fixed  
point in that relation, but it is not describable in any 3p terms.  It  
is not a thing, it is phenomenological or epistemological. It concerns  
the soul, not the body, which helps only for the differentiation  
and the person relative partial control.


Bruno






--
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.

Re: God

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:

 The heuristics of not considering the reasoning because you don´t like
 the conclusion is fine for living, but not for discussion with other people
 with the purpose of learning something new.


It's not about not liking the conclusion, it's not even about the
conclusion being wrong, it's about the conclusion being imbecilic. Do you
disagree, do you think that somebody who says The church at the time of
Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also
took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's
doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and
revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political
opportunism. was NOT imbecilic?

There are only 2 reasons Paul Feyerabend would say something that brain
dead dumb:

1)   Paul Feyerabend is a imbecile and imbeciles tend to say imbecilic
things..

2)  Paul Feyerabend is much more interested in being provocative than he is
in being correct.

Either way Paul Feyerabend is a jackass.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?



On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:


LizR wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 09:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
 wrote:

   On 4/23/2015 1:03 AM, LizR wrote:
   The discussion was originally about step 3 in the comp  
argument.

   Obviously if we've moved onto something else then comp may not
   be relevant, however, if we are still talking about comp then
   the question of importance is whether a brain is Turing  
emulable

   at any level (which includes whether physics is Turing
   emulable). If it is, then either the argument goes through, or
   one of Bruno's other premises is wrong, or there is a  
mistake in

   his argument.
   Well, maybe Bruno can clarify.  He always says that physics and
   consciousness are not computable; they are some kind of sum or
   average over countably infinite many threads going through a
   particular state of the UD.  So it's not that clear what it means
   that the brain is Turing emulable in Bruno's theory, even if it is
   Turing emulable in the materialist theory.  That's part of my
   concern that the environment of the brain, the physics of it is
   relation to the environment, is what makes it not emulable because
   its perception/awareness is inherently adapted to the  
environment by

   evolution.  Bruno tends to dismiss this as a technicality because
   one can just expand the scope of the emulation to include the
   environment.  But I think that's a flaw.  If the scope has to be
   expanded then all that's proven in step 8 is that, within  a
   simulated environment a simulated consciousness doesn't require  
any
   real physics - just simulated physics.  But that's almost  
trivial. I

   say almost because it may still provide some explanation of
   consciousness within the simulation.
I think you'll find that consciousness isn't computable /if you  
assume all the consequences of comp/. But once you've assumed all  
that, you've already had to throw out materialism, including  
brains, so the question is meaningless.


That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was  
Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest  
that consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is  
Turing emulable.


Using an identity thesis which does no more work, as normally UDA  
makes clear.





If you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness  
isn't computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might  
have hit a contradiction.


Not necessarily. Consciousness, like truth, is a notion that the  
machine cannot define for itself, although she can study this for  
machine simpler than herself. The same happens with knowledge. Those  
notions mix what the machine can define and believe, and semantical  
notions related to truth, which would need stronger beliefs, that no  
machine can get about itself for logical reason. We don't hit the  
contradiction, we just explore the G* minus G logic of machines  which  
are correct by definition (something necessarily not constructive).
Consciousness is not much more than the mental first person state of a  
person believing *correctly* in some reality, be it a dream or a  
physical universe. That notion relies on another non definable nition:  
reality, which per se, is not Turing emulable.
The brain does not produce or compute consciousness, it might even  
been more like a filter, which differentiate consciousness in the many  
histories, and make a person having some genuine first person  
perspective, which are also not definable (although locally  
approximable by the (correct) person's discourse, once having enough  
introspective ability).
Comp explains all this, with a big price: we have to extract the  
apparent stability of the physical laws from machine's self-reference  
logics. The laws of physics have to be brain-invariant, or phi_i  
invariant. This put a quite big constraint on what a physical  
(observable) reality can be.


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.

Re: crime and duplication machines



On 25 Apr 2015, at 04:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/24/2015 7:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Well, not only is the concept of personal identity, problematic, so  
is the concept of guilt and free will. If I kill someone and I did  
it because of the way I was born and the way my environment was  
it's not my fault, and if I did it due to randomness it's not my  
fault. So the practical solution to questions of crime and  
punishment is to do what will deter crime. In particular, people  
should be deterred from using copying and memory transfer to commit  
crimes and avoid punishment.


Right.  All the talk about guilt and free will and what God commands  
and who's responsible are human inventions to control and order  
societies that grew beyond extended families.



Guilt and free will can exist, like God without being (mis)used by  
powers. But when the science is left in the hands of the Church,  
progress are slow down, discoveries are hidden, etc.


Theology is the science which has this defect: the use of the  
authoritative argument is the most grave, and the more easy, or hard  
to not do, when communicating about it. All serious theologians are  
aware of the difficulties, and usually do criticize from inside the  
authorities.


You must not confuse the domain of investigation, and the human  
theories about it. In theology, we are still, even just compared to  
the greek, in the age of fairy tales.


As long as scientist hides the problem under the rug, the fake  
religion will keep the fake, but locally real, power.


Theoretical theology, like all theoretical sciences, can be done  
without any ontological commitment.


Bruno




Brent

--
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.

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?



On 23 Apr 2015, at 23:54, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/23/2015 1:03 AM, LizR wrote:
The discussion was originally about step 3 in the comp argument.  
Obviously if we've moved onto something else then comp may not be  
relevant, however, if we are still talking about comp then the  
question of importance is whether a brain is Turing emulable at any  
level (which includes whether physics is Turing emulable). If it  
is, then either the argument goes through, or one of Bruno's other  
premises is wrong, or there is a mistake in his argument.


Well, maybe Bruno can clarify.  He always says that physics and  
consciousness are not computable; they are some kind of sum or  
average over countably infinite many threads going through a  
particular state of the UD.  So it's not that clear what it means  
that the brain is Turing emulable in Bruno's theory, even if it is  
Turing emulable in the materialist theory.  That's part of my  
concern that the environment of the brain, the physics of it is  
relation to the environment, is what makes it not emulable because  
its perception/awareness is inherently adapted to the environment by  
evolution.  Bruno tends to dismiss this as a technicality because  
one can just expand the scope of the emulation to include the  
environment.  But I think that's a flaw.  If the scope has to be  
expanded then all that's proven in step 8 is that, within  a  
simulated environment a simulated consciousness doesn't require any  
real physics - just simulated physics.  But that's almost trivial. I  
say almost because it may still provide some explanation of  
consciousness within the simulation.


Expanded or not, once the state are digital states, they are  
accessible by the UD, and part of the sigma_1 truth,.
But this is only needed to explain the comp supervenience, which is  
need to explain the measure problem.


Consciousness is not Turing emulable, because it is not even  
definable. It is a true, bt undefianble attribute of a person defined  
by the knower that exists attached to the machine, by incompleteness  
(and obeying S4Grz, X1, X1*).


Even the truth of 1+1=2 cannot be emulated, but with comp the belief  
of 1+1=2 can be emulated, and we can only hope it is true, to have  
the []1+1=2 together with the fact that 1+1=2.


It is subtle, and that's why the tool by Solovay (G and G*) is a  
tremendous help, in this context of ideamlly self-referentially  
correct machine.


Bruno





Brent

--
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.

Re: Origin of mathematics

You think in terms of computing reality. That is not my point. I mean
computing the salient aspects of reality approximately by living beings.
with the purpose of avoid entropic decay.

For example, a flower must compute when the amount of light is right for
opening the petals, the insect that pollinate the flower, must compute when
to start the journey fliying to detect the flower. A  lion that attack
laterally must compute speed and direction in the line to calculate in
which direction run after the antelope. A bacteria must compute which
quantity of marker indicates that the density of the colony is enough to
synchronize the production of antigen etc.

2015-04-25 23:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:


 On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 Mathematics may be the simplest rules that produce complexity that can be
 computed.


 ... and not computed.

 Always remember that the computable is only a tiny part of the
 arithmetical reality, which is 99,999..998 % non computable.



 Reality may be the most complex game possible with the simplest rules
 possible, so that some elements can exist and live while responding to what
 happens around them.

 To live is to compute.  If the rules of the game were a bit more
 complicated than necessary, the world would not exist, because nobody would
 live and thus observe it.


 The problem is that we cannot distinguish the non computable from the
 computable empirically. A machine much more complex than ourselves can fail
 us into believing in non-computable, in a computable way, but comp offers
 indirect clues, like finding trace of the non-computable below our
 substitution level. QM confirms this, somehow.

 Life occurs at the frontier between the computable and the non
 computable.

 Bruno



 2015-04-25 3:48 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au:

 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:23:38PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
  On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
  Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
  I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
  WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
  Why not  2 + 2 =  -175,834? or even '1'?  (Without
  changing the game).
  I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science,
  physics, etc. etc.
 
  Random doesn't mean anything goes, it means not-deterministic.  It
  means exactly the same system may produce different outcomes.  And
  if you try to add two meters to two meters your result may well be
  4.123 or 3.999876.  So far this has not destroyed technology,
  science, or physics.  Engineers deal with it in every system.
 
  Brent
  2+2=5 for large values of 2.
 

 Exactly. Thanks Brent.

 --


 
 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

 

 --
 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.




 --
 Alberto.

 --
 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.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

Re: God



On 25 Apr 2015, at 06:29, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Apr 23, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  God is a term like consciousness, which does not admit direct  
definition.


 But there is a EXCELLENT example of consciousness, me. What is  
your example of God?


 Which one?

I don't care I'm not picky it's your choice;  you can't provide a  
definition so just give me a example, any example, of God.



Arithmetical truth,
Analytical truth,
Physical truth,
The God of the Jews,
The One of Plotinus
The Noùs of Plato,
The great architect of the Timaeus,
The One of Parmenides,
Cantor's Great Inkonsistenz (modulo the spelling)
Allah,
Krishna,

I do research, there are common pattern in between those notions, and  
what the ideally correct machine get when they look inward, or even  
just reason about their possible bodies.








 Einstein wrote many statement about God

Yes and here are a few of them:
it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious  
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not  
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have  
expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called  
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of  
the world so far as our science can reveal it.


I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything  
that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is  
a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very  
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of  
humility


The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even  
naive.


A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,  
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man  
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of  
punishment and hope of reward after death.



I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe  
at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate  
senses to appreciate it.





Yes. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he was a  
believer. He said:


I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding  
ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from  
it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the  
same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from  
the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight  
of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They  
are creatures who---in their grudge against the traditional opium for  
people---cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature  
does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards  
of human moral and humans aims.

(See the book by Jammer on Einstein and Religion, page 97).

Of course, ehere I am closer to Gödel, who estimate theology can and  
must be done with the scientific method, but Einstein's intution is  
correct: it has to do with the things we cannot see, believe, know,  
observe,  and so the science is delicate, but then computer science  
gives a tool to distinguish truth and provable for smaller machine  
than us, which we know being correct (if you agree with the axioms I  
gave to John.







 As you don't want to read Plotinus and Proclus,

I'd rather have my teeth drilled.



My four aged niece gave me a similar argument against spinash.


This means that you are not even aware of such system. It is easier to  
understand why you can't conceive any different metaphysics than the  
Aristotelians.


You dismiss without reading, like you told me you do with my own  
writting.


I have heard about people like that, but never met them. yet usually  
they do believe in materialism. But you seem open to the idea that  
materialism could be wrong, so why do you dismiss Plato, as he is the  
guy who lead to rich and non trivial development in that direction.








 Maybe, or maybe not, nobody knows. Maybe Physics really is  
fundamental and mathematics is just the best language for describing  
it.


 Mathematics kicks back.

Physics most certainly kicks back no doubt about it, I'm less  
certain about mathematics.


Think about Church thesis. It is a thesis at the intersection of math  
and philosophy, and it kick back terribly as making non computability  
absolute, and unavoidable.


Arithmetic is full of life. This is trivial.




 Language does not.

Mathematicians are always saying that mathematics is a language,  
maybe they're right.


Only conventionalist philosophers. There is a mathematical languages,  
even many, but that is distinct of the mathematical theories, and the  
mathematical models. Logicians have tools to talk about non definable,  
but mathematically existing object, like the first person captured by  
[]p  p (which is provably necessarily non formal, and non  
formalizable, yet with a tiny, but

Re: God



On 24 Apr 2015, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/24/2015 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/23/2015 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You ask me a definition of God. There are none. God is a term  
like consciousness, which does not admit direct definition. I use  
the more general one, on which most people agree: the term God  
designates the ONE on which we bet as being the creator, or the  
reason, or the cause, or the explanation of everything.


The main attribute of God in the major religions is that He  
defines good and evil


Notably.



(which in probably why the concept was invented as a social  
constraint).  But I see no reason to suppose that there is ONE  
thing or person which is the reason, cause or explanation of  
everything.  Our morals and ethics certainly don't have one cause  
or reason.


Well, that is a very personal matter, and it is amazing you  
contribute to a list which is based on the faith that a theory of  
everything is possible (even if incomplete).


Metaphysically, you make a very strong statement. If our morals and  
ethics does not have a cause or reason,


I wrote, ...don't have ONE cause or reason.


That is playing with the word. If thoise things have different cause,  
you need something which makes the different cause participating to  
the same things, and unless you opt for irrationalism, you need a  
common ground reality to explains the many participating cause. That  
is why physicists want to unify their theories.


If not you are back to instrumentalism, and not interested in  
searching truth.





not only mechanism is false, but physicalism is false, all  
religions are false, etc.


You might be right, but it is not the kind of hypothesis which can  
provide motivation for the research. As an assumption, it is a  
suggestion to abandon research.






Then you can compare the religions, all of them, including the  
monist materialist one (atheist).


A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An  
atheist can agree that The material reality plays the role of  
God,


That already assumes that there is such a role.  It's not in my  
play.


I am not sure I understand.


I don't think there's a single cause/source of for all of physical  
reality, culuture, ethics, art, mathematics, consciousness...  There  
is circumstance and accident at different levels.


We agree on that. But what about the initial assumptions? The TOE?

With comp, any U numbers will do.






May be it is out of the topic, but I want say something about the  
expression theory of everything. What could that be?
The expression is born in physics, where a theory of everything  
would unify the electro-magnetic, the weak force, well all forces  
known in nature, including gravitation.


But what about the force of love, which seems to attract people  
from opposite gender, or same gender, people?


Let us now distinguish the physicist answer and the physicalist (or  
materialist) answer.


The physicist answer can just be: -Oh? Love is out of my topic, I  
am interested only in quantitative and repeatable measure on  
numbers and their relation, it looks like with E8, the octonion and  
a bit of quantum algebra we can unify all those measurable things,  
with one quite simple equation of the type Epsi=epsi.

But love? I'm afraid this is out my scope of study.

The physicalist explanation will be. -Oh? Very simple, The quantum  
void is unstable and turing universal. In its many relative states,  
some lead to big bangs where space-time exploded, so to speak, with  
birth and distribution of interacting particles until nearby a star  
built the heavy atoms leading to planets and the water molecules,  
chemistry just follows Epsi = epsi, and at the right distance from  
the Star ... a cycle prey-predators, leads to complex organism,  
accelerating through genders molecular dialogs, and love is an  
higher level emergenced of a bio-psychological force making people  
attracted or repulsed, or making plants forcing the insects to  
manage the seminal posting.



Then the point is that computationalism,


So what's the computationalist story.  It's my impression that you  
just assume the computationalist can help himself to the physicalist  
explanation and then tack on a mystic explanation of consciousness  
that says an AI is conscious if it can prove Goedel's theorem and  
apply it to itself.



Come on. I never said that. Löbianity is required for self- 
consciousness, not consciousness.




 An explanation that tells me nothing about how to make (or avoid  
making) a conscious AI


?

Of course it does. Not in an exploitable way today, perhaps, but AUDA  
is the result of talking with such entities.




or how anesthetics affect human consciousness


That is dependent of the local implementations, which here will have  
to be justified at some level from the theory.


The point is that Mechanism + Materialism leads to

Re: Origin of mathematics


Hi John,

On 24 Apr 2015, at 23:57, John Mikes wrote:


Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
Why not  2 + 2 =  -175,834? or even '1'?  (Without
changing the game).


Without changing the game? I lend you 2 dollars, and then once again,  
now you owe me 175,384 dollars.

Nice!



I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science,
physics, etc. etc.


Why would randomness eliminate technology? We can, and do, exploit  
randomness. Also, some things can be random and other things being not  
random. You need both to see the difference and get the concept.






My non-IndoEuropean mother tongue has no 'random, we use the
translation of the German exbeliebig (~ from what we like??) - well
I don't LIKE it, so I have no random?

Russell wrote more than a decade ago: 'yes', it seems there
should be a 'relative random' - but nothing further from him.
Nor anybody else.


The math provides a tool for measuring a form of randomness inherent  
from the number's perspective in arithmetic. A machine cannot  
distinguish randomness from a non random production of a machine much  
more complex than herself, so randomness is always based on  
theoretical, and non random deeper beliefs/assumptions.





Randomly yours (no random qgnosticism, however)



I appreciate your agnosticism has no random reason.

You asked also: what is a number?

 In science, we don't know.

But we can agree on some basic first principles and deduce from  
there.  Number can be defined axiomatically by axioms like:


0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1))  - x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

You, and all universal machines, are free to propose another theory,  
but up to now, everyone agrees with the axioms above for the natural  
numbers (0, 1, 2, ...), and in that theory, you can already prove the  
existence of universal numbers, and of universal numbers developing  
beliefs.


But that theory is not Löbian. It might be conscious in some trivial  
sense, but it has no self-consciousness, for which you need to add the  
infinitely many axioms of induction:


If P is true for zero, and if P is such that (if p is true for x then  
P is true for x + 1) then you can derive that P is true for all x.


This makes the entity as much conscious than you and me, but with so  
less prejudices than us, the humans, that you see the theological  
first principle that such machine can't avoid when looking inward.


More on this in a reply to Brent.

Bruno



John Mikes

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2015, at 08:37, meekerdb wrote:
2+2=1 in mod 3 arithmetic.  If you change the game you change what  
can be proven.  You can't keep the old version and assume its  
proofs apply to the new game.


But you haven't changed the game. 2+2=4, still, in normal  
arithmetic, and unless you can change THAT you are still in the same  
game. (All you've done is to discover that there's more to the  
game than you originally thought.)


I'm a little disappointed. Although I'm of the opinion that maths  
isn't made up (based on its unreasonable effectiveness in the  
physical sciences) I still expected a slightly more sophisticated  
level of argument. If that's the type of argument that supposedly  
shows maths is made up, it doesn't look like physicists need fear  
that the mathematical rug they've been relying on for the last 300  
years will be pulled out from beneath them anytime soon.



--
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.


--
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.

Re: Origin of mathematics



On 25 Apr 2015, at 15:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Mathematics may be the simplest rules that produce complexity that  
can be computed.


... and not computed.

Always remember that the computable is only a tiny part of the  
arithmetical reality, which is 99,999..998 % non computable.




Reality may be the most complex game possible with the simplest  
rules possible, so that some elements can exist and live while  
responding to what happens around them.


To live is to compute.  If the rules of the game were a bit more  
complicated than necessary, the world would not exist, because  
nobody would live and thus observe it.


The problem is that we cannot distinguish the non computable from the  
computable empirically. A machine much more complex than ourselves can  
fail us into believing in non-computable, in a computable way, but  
comp offers indirect clues, like finding trace of the non-computable  
below our substitution level. QM confirms this, somehow.


Life occurs at the frontier between the computable and the non  
computable.


Bruno




2015-04-25 3:48 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:23:38PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
 Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
 I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
 WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
 Why not  2 + 2 =  -175,834? or even '1'?  (Without
 changing the game).
 I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science,
 physics, etc. etc.

 Random doesn't mean anything goes, it means not-deterministic.  It
 means exactly the same system may produce different outcomes.  And
 if you try to add two meters to two meters your result may well be
 4.123 or 3.999876.  So far this has not destroyed technology,
 science, or physics.  Engineers deal with it in every system.

 Brent
 2+2=5 for large values of 2.


Exactly. Thanks Brent.

--


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


--
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.



--
Alberto.

--
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.

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

On 4/25/2015 2:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Apr 2015, at 02:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 4/24/2015 3:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2015-04-24 22:33 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:

On 4/24/2015 5:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing
emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that
consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing
emulable. If
you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness isn't
computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a
contradiction.

ISTM, that's because you conflate the machinery (iow: the brain or a
computer
program running on a physical computer) necessary for consciousness to be
able to
manifest itself relatively to an environment and consciousness itself.

How do we know the two are separable? What is consciousness that can't
manifest
itself? The environment (the body?) isn't another sentient being that can
recognize the consciousness...is it?

The thing is, under computationalism hypothesis, there are an infinity of valid
implementations of a particular conscious moment, so consciousness itself is
superverning on all of them,

Does that mean each of them or does it mean the completed infinity of them? And what
is a conscious moment? Is it just a state of a Turing machine implementing all these
computations, or is it a long sequence of states.

assuming the brain is turing emulable, any implementation of it is valid, and there
are an infinity of equivalent implementations such as you have to make a distinction
of a particular implementation of that conscious moment and the consciousness itself.

Why? Is it because the different implementations will diverge after this particular
state and will instantiate different conscious states. I don't see how there can be a
concept of consciousness itself or a consciousness in this model. Consciousness is
just a sequence of states (each which happen to be realized infinitely many times).

Consciousness is 1p, and a sequence of states is 3p, so they can't be equal.
Consciousness is more like a sequence of states _related to a possible reality,_ and
consciousness is more like a semantical fixed point in that relation, but it is not
describable in any 3p terms.

Semantical fixed point sounds close to intersubjective agreement which is the basis of
empirical epistemology. What semantical transformation is consciousness a fixed point of?

If it's not 3p describable how is it we seem to be talking about it. What I'm interested
in is whether an AI will be conscious and what that consciousness will be. For that I
need a description of how the consciousness is realized.

It is not a thing, it is phenomenological or epistemological. It concerns the soul,
not the body, which helps only for the differentiation and the person relative partial
control.

Brent

--
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.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading


On 4/24/2015 7:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Why should quantum states be so hard to identify and describe? Heisenberg's  uncertainty 
principle states that we cannot know a particles position and velocity at the same time. 


But we can.  It's just that if we prepare the particle in the same state again and measure 
we'll get different values and the more precisely we measure q the more scatter we get in 
the measure of p.


Brent


But nothing prevents us from describing where a particle WAS and how fast it was moving, 
2 hours ago, just not right now, at the same time. If we throw away immediacy we have 
Heisenberg describing the world exactly-in the immediate and maybe the remote past. or 
whats a david deutsch for? 


--
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.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On 4/24/2015 4:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com a écrit :

Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com a écrit :

On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com:

On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam
dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no.

Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a
perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude
perfect copying.

Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain
undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person.

That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not
duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to
make it; at the very least for me). But if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to
that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed
of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with
it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a
problem even phisophisically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want
what you're saying to be meaningfull)

The no clone theorem refers to physical copying,

I know.

so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like an
immaterial soul.

It is if perfect physical copying is not enough because it misses something.

So to try to be clearer, if reality as it is does not give us access to what makes us
conscious because whatever it is that makes us conscious is not in any of the physical
properties,

What does access mean in the above. I have access to my consciousness; I can reflect
that I'm conscious, a kind of inner perception. What other access could there be? Do
you mean the ability to make a copy or a conscious thing?

then even if you were able to make such a perfect physical copy, it would still not be
you or even conscious because by definition that perfect copy does not have the
conscious property which is not physical and cannot therefore be copied.

You seem to define access as an ability to physically reproduce, and then you say if we
don't have access we can't physically reproduce consciousness. Which is then reduced to a
tautology.

Brent

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading


On 4/24/2015 4:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:


How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.


Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is constantly 
duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of copies of the entire 
universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate.


In Everett's MWI the mulitple worlds are just projections of the one 
state-of-the-multivers onto different (approximately) orthogonal subspaces.  There's no 
duplicating of states.  And in any case the no-cloning theorem doesn't prohibit there 
being multiple copies of a state, it just prevents you from measuring an unknown state 
completely so that you know you have duplicated it.  You can make copies of a state you 
know (i.e. prepare). And you could coincidentally make a copy of an unknown state - you 
just wouldn't be able to know it was a copy.


Brent

--
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.

Re: God

If you read just extracts and headlines, you will never understand the news.

2015-04-25 6:40 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:

 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015  Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:

  Someones like Paul Feyerabend are also for the separation of State and
 Science, which is something very urgent now.


 I pretty much lost interest in anything  Paul Feyerabend thinks is
 rational and just after he wrote:

  The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than
 Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social
 consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was
 rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of
 political opportunism.

 Paul Feyerabend is a jackass.

   John K Clark



 --
 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.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-25 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Le 25 avr. 2015 08:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :

 On 4/24/2015 4:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


 Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com a écrit :
 
 
  Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a
écrit :
  
  
  
   On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
  
  
  
   2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
  
  
  
   On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
  
   For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to
cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For
me, no.
  
  
   Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem,
since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no
clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying.
  
   Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since
your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that
you remain the same person.
  
  
   That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to
consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since
our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But
if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do,
forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light
under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning
with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is
false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still
want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull)
  
  
   The no clone theorem refers to physical copying,
 
  I know.
 
  so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like
an immaterial soul.
 
  It is if perfect physical copying is not enough because it misses
something.

 So to try to be clearer, if reality as it is does not give us access to
what makes us conscious because whatever it is that makes us conscious is
not in any of the physical properties,


 What does access mean in the above.  I have access to my consciousness;
I can reflect that I'm conscious, a kind of inner perception.  What other
access could there be?  Do you mean the ability to make a copy or a
conscious thing?

Access means the ability to copy the property that makes a conscious person
conscious. If perfect physical copy cannot copy that even so it is a
complete physical copy missing nothing physically speaking, because even
that property is not comprised in the physical properties we have copied,
by definition that copy would not be conscious. Again to be clear that's
not what I believe, but it.'s an argument against that the in principle
copy is always possible and meaningfull whatever reality is.

Quentin


 then even if you were able to make such a perfect physical copy, it
would still not be you or even conscious because by definition that perfect
copy does not have the conscious property which is not physical and cannot
therefore be copied.


 You seem to define access as an ability to physically reproduce, and
then you say if we don't have access we can't physically reproduce
consciousness.  Which is then reduced to a tautology.

 Brent

 --
 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Origin of mathematics

Mathematics may be the simplest rules that produce complexity that can be
computed. Reality may be the most complex game possible with the simplest
rules possible, so that some elements can exist and live while responding
to what happens around them.

To live is to compute.  If the rules of the game were a bit more
complicated than necessary, the world would not exist, because nobody would
live and thus observe it.

2015-04-25 3:48 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au:

 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:23:38PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
  On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
  Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography:
  I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far.
  WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM?
  Why not  2 + 2 =  -175,834? or even '1'?  (Without
  changing the game).
  I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science,
  physics, etc. etc.
 
  Random doesn't mean anything goes, it means not-deterministic.  It
  means exactly the same system may produce different outcomes.  And
  if you try to add two meters to two meters your result may well be
  4.123 or 3.999876.  So far this has not destroyed technology,
  science, or physics.  Engineers deal with it in every system.
 
  Brent
  2+2=5 for large values of 2.
 

 Exactly. Thanks Brent.

 --


 
 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

 

 --
 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.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

Re: God

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015  Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you read just extracts and headlines, you will never understand the
 news.


I agree, but I thought we were talking about a jackass by the name of Paul
Feyerabend.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015  LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  a destructive upload should be possible, and a conservative upload would
 give you a 50-50 chance of finding yourself uploaded.


Would give who a 50-50 chance of being uploaded?


  If there is something wrong with comp [...]


There is plenty wrong with Bruno's comp, but there is nothing wrong with
computationalism.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015  LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 The question is whether the you who was a biological entity experiences
 waking up as the uploaded version.


If the you who woke up this morning is the same you that went to sleep
last night then the answer to the above question is obvious. If the you
who woke up this morning is NOT the same you that went to sleep last
night then the answer to the above question is unimportant.

 Tipler claims


Tipler's old claims were interesting but later proven to be wrong, Tipler's
new claims are insane.


  that is guaranteed if you can duplicate - or, apparently, just simulate
 - the quantum state of your body


That would be VAST overkill! The quantum state of your body changes about a
hundred thousand million billion trillion times every second of your life,
but subjectively it doesn't cause a loss of personal identity, and in a
case like this subjectivity is far more important than objectivity.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: God