Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
John, All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked many times, by many people. I will no more comment those ad hominem spurious trolling posts. Bruno On 21 Aug 2015, at 19:26, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Nobody will have two 1p from an 1p pov. If Ed remains somebody even after Ed is duplicated then somebody will have two 1p from a 1p pov. However John Clark is reluctant to say what will happen to you until Bruno Marchal gives a much better explanation about what that personal pronoun means in a world with you duplicating machines. We have agreed that both are you. Yes, and so you will be in Washington AND Moscow, and from that Bruno Marchal concludes that you will see only one city. And all the peepee in the world can't sweep that logical contradiction under the rug. That is even the reason why we listen to both copies, and both comfirm the W v M prediction, and both refute the W M prediction We must listen to both copies because the prediction was about you and because both are you and both CONFIRM the W AND M prediction. Not that predictions, correct or incorrect have anything to do with the continuous feeling of a unique self. if the guy in Helsinki is a fool he could predict monkeys will fly out of his ass. But I'm more interested in what will happen that in what some jackass believes will happen. In that case you change the subject, which is not what will happen, but what will be experienced (assuming the person believes or assumes computationalism). What the hell are you talking about?? What will happen IS what will be experienced and it doesn't matter one bit if the person assumes computationalism or not! Definitions are made of words and those words also have definitions also made of words and round and round we go; the only thing that breaks us out of that infinite loop is usage. Where do you think lexicographers got the information to write their dictionaries? Only one place, usage. In science we use axiomatics, Yes, you say computationalism is an axiom and then you use it in a proof that you claim proves this and that, but you're like a geometer what says that a Euclidean axiom is that 2 parallel lines never meet and then in a direct Euclidean proof starts talking about point X where 2 parallel lines meet. Usage beats definitions every time. you are just playing with word AKA thinking. as you have agreed that you is not ambiguous before the duplication. And you is ambiguous after the duplication which is what the prediction was about. So why doesn't Bruno just substitute Ed for you and end this you controversy? Because Ed contains no ambiguity and thus Bruno would have no place to hide sloppy thinking. I don't think anybody understand your point, Yes, I'm the only one on the planet who failed to recognize the brilliance of your proof, and that is why you won the Nobel Prize. Oh wait Come on, you don't even try to answer a precise question asked in my last post. If I ever find a precise question in one of your posts I will answer it or say I don't know, but gibberish is not a question even if it has a question mark at the end. 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. 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: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?
On Thursday, August 27, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options? Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:32:37 +1000 From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com'); To: everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com'); everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com'); On 26 August 2015 at 17:21, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peterjacco...@gmail.com'); wrote: Hi guys and girls, I'm sure this question has already come up many times before, but it's an important one, so I guess it can't do any harm to go over it again. If the universe is thoroughly computational, what are the computations 'running' on? What I especially like to know is what options are discussed in digital physics. So far I have encountered only the following possibilities: (1) Mathematical platonism: all natural numbers, and all mappings between them (i.e. all algorithms), simply exist in 'Plato's heaven', including those algorithms that compute our universe. The simple non-spatiotemporal existence of those algorithms is enough to 'instantiate' a spatiotemporal world. This type of solution can be found in Tipler, Tegmark and our own Bruno Marchal. I thought Tipler's theory is that there will be an actual physical computer that will be able to do all possible computations as the Universe collapses - although since he came up with the idea it has been shown that the Universe won't collapse in the required way. Major problem: the hard problem of consciousness. Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness a problem in the computerless computation scenario? Because then it's not clear why there should be the connection between brains and consciousness. If they are both just computations, why do they have this tight causal relation. Why can't the consciousness be computed independently. If it can't, if it depends on the brain being also computer - then you're back to the hard problem. Yes; I meant that it's no more or less a problem if there is no physical computer. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?
On 27 Aug 2015, at 21:14, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't know why people want hardware for computation, I know, it's because in the history of the world NOBODY has ever been able to perform one single calculation without using hardware. No hardware = no calculation. Consult Turing or Church, or a textbook on computability, for the definition of computation. Their existence are demonstrated to be realized or implemented in arithmetic (RA is already enough). Once you assume the basic laws of the natural numbers, (mainly the laws of addition and multiplication), then, all computations exist That's backwards. We know for a fact that computations exist because we've observed them, Assuming that observation is an ontological criteria, that is assuming Aristotelianism, which I do not assume, and actually is refuted in the computationalist frame. but we don't know for fact that the natural numbers exist, in fact nobody has been able to observe an infinite number of anything. Platonists believe in what they understand, not necessarily in what they observe or believe to observe. Platonists are aware that we can dream doing observation of things which do not exist. Bruno 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. 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: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?
I'm not assuming QM, the goal is to derive it, perhaps only as an approximation. It would be better if QM only turns out to be approximately true, because then one can attempt to predict what experimental signatures there are. Saibal On 27-08-2015 18:47, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2015, at 00:25, smitra wrote: The answer is (1), except that that it's not the algorithm for generating the laws of physics rather simply you, me, Bruno or whatever other conscious entity at some particular state where they have some conscious experience. Each different conscious experience is defined by the action of some operator on a set of states. Are you assuming QM? This defines a different element for each different conscious experience. The laws of physics are effective meta laws that describe the structure of the multiverse. The laws of physics allow one to predict the probability to experience certain experimental outcomes and this must therefore already include any effects due to us having multiple copies in various sectors of some Platonic multiverse. Bruno has made some progress in deriving the laws of physics from such ideas, but I'm not convinced at this moment that his approach is indeed the correct path. It is not my path. It is the path of any ideally arithmetically sound self-referentially correct entity (in particular the platonist computationalist ideally arithmetically sound self-referentially correct machines). The weakness of this approach is that it use mathematical logic, which is not well known. I've been thinking about a different approach, here one starts with defining an observer moment as a fuzzy object defined by a mapping from set of inputs to a set of outputs. The fuzzyness comes from the fact that both sets have more than one element, so one cannot nail down exactly what is observed, it has a finite width. On the other hand, the range is not infinite, therefore the mapping is not clearly defined. The larger you make the range of the mapping, the better defined the mapping becomes but then the fuzzyness of what is observed increases. Given any arbitrary observer moment defined by such an operator O, one can construct a generator H such that: exp(-i H t) = O E where H acts on a larger space than O and then the exponentiation results in the tensor product of O and another operator E that acts on the extraneous degrees of freedom. The question is if there exists an H that can be specified with just a few bits of information for some generic O that needs to be specified using trillions of gigabytes of information. I am open to the exp(-i H t) solution. The advantage of getting it, (if it is correct from the machine's introspection/interview) is to make us able to distinguish the sharable part (the measurable numbers of the experimental physicists) from the non sharable (but still true) part of reality, that is, notably, the qualia, consciousness, the divine, etc. This by the intensional nuance of the logic of self- reference G and G*, and G* \ G, but mainly. The aristotelians cheat by looking at nature, but of course there is no problem, and it is needed to compare with what the machine can find in their head. Bruno Saibal On 26-08-2015 09:21, Peter Sas wrote: Hi guys and girls, I'm sure this question has already come up many times before, but it's an important one, so I guess it can't do any harm to go over it again. If the universe is thoroughly computational, what are the computations 'running' on? What I especially like to know is what options are discussed in digital physics. So far I have encountered only the following possibilities: (1) Mathematical platonism: all natural numbers, and all mappings between them (i.e. all algorithms), simply exist in 'Plato's heaven', including those algorithms that compute our universe. The simple non-spatiotemporal existence of those algorithms is enough to 'instantiate' a spatiotemporal world. This type of solution can be found in Tipler, Tegmark and our own Bruno Marchal. Major problem: the hard problem of consciousness. (2) Simulation by an advanced civilization: Our universe is simulated on a physical computer build by a superior intelligence. Nick Bolstrom has explored this option and found it quite probable. I don't know about that, but as a general approach to digital physics it fails. If we want to understand the physical universe in terms of computation then it is circular to postulate a physical hardware on which the computations are running. (3) Or perhaps it is not circular? This third option sees the physical universe itself as a (quantum) computer (or cellular automaton) computing its own future. Thus its present state is the input and the temporally next state is the output. Isn't this how David Deutsch approaches it? I am not very clear on this option. The major problem seems to be that you have to presuppose an initial state of
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked many times, by many people. Bullshit. I will no more comment Coward. 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: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: in the history of the world *NOBODY* has ever been able to perform one single calculation without using hardware. No hardware = no calculation. Consult Turing or Church, Consult Fortune magazine for a list of computer hardware companies with zero manufacturing costs because they had no need to actually manufacture anything out of matter. or a textbook on computability, for the definition of computation. And in the entire history of the world *NOBODY* has ever been able to perform one single calculation with a definition. Once you assume the basic laws of the natural numbers, (mainly the laws of addition and multiplication), then, all computations exist That's backwards. We know for a fact that computations exist because we've observed them, Assuming that observation is an ontological criteria, In other words assuming that the scientific method can be a useful tool for finding out more about how the world works, and that assumption has worked pretty well up to now. that is assuming Aristotelianism, To hell with Aristotle and to hell with all those damn overrated ancient Greeks! I said it before I'll say it again, Aristotle was the worst physicists who ever lived. And Plato sucked too. Platonists believe in what they understand, not necessarily in what they observe And that philosophy was dogma from the time of the ancient Greeks to the renaissance, and that is precisely why science made such little progress during those 2000 years. 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: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?
Great topic Peter! I recently worked on a film called *Digital Physics* in which the protagonist, Khatchig, chases the answer to some of these questions and I've been trying to keep following these concepts ever since. I can't tell you exactly which one of your possibilities Khatchig supports in his quest to prove DP but it's exactly what you're talking about and I have a feeling the film touches on a number of them. Cellular Automaton, Simulations, Computers, Wolfram, Fredkin, Kolmogorov Complexity, Free Will, etc... it's all in there. Maybe you guys can make heads or tails of the science in the movie. I'm still trying to! Agree or disagree with Khatchig's science, I thought this group would enjoy the story and the universe it explores so I've included the trailer below. You can also check out the film's website here http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/... there's a Science Corner http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/science-corner/ page on the site has a collection of links and videos to some of the top contributors on the topic you might enjoy. And if you like what you see, you can scroll to the bottom of the website and sign up for the Mailing List. We've just been accepted to two film festivals in October and we'll be making the film available on VOD by the end of the year so it's a great time to start getting updates. Thanks for your interest and thanks for supporting Digital Physics! https://youtu.be/Q216LjDzeJw On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 10:01:27 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thursday, August 27, 2015, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options? Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:32:37 +1000 From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com On 26 August 2015 at 17:21, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys and girls, I'm sure this question has already come up many times before, but it's an important one, so I guess it can't do any harm to go over it again. If the universe is thoroughly computational, what are the computations 'running' on? What I especially like to know is what options are discussed in digital physics. So far I have encountered only the following possibilities: (1) Mathematical platonism: all natural numbers, and all mappings between them (i.e. all algorithms), simply exist in 'Plato's heaven', including those algorithms that compute our universe. The simple non-spatiotemporal existence of those algorithms is enough to 'instantiate' a spatiotemporal world. This type of solution can be found in Tipler, Tegmark and our own Bruno Marchal. I thought Tipler's theory is that there will be an actual physical computer that will be able to do all possible computations as the Universe collapses - although since he came up with the idea it has been shown that the Universe won't collapse in the required way. Major problem: the hard problem of consciousness. Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness a problem in the computerless computation scenario? Because then it's not clear why there should be the connection between brains and consciousness. If they are both just computations, why do they have this tight causal relation. Why can't the consciousness be computed independently. If it can't, if it depends on the brain being also computer - then you're back to the hard problem. Yes; I meant that it's no more or less a problem if there is no physical computer. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Uploaded Worm Mind
On 8/28/2015 3:00 PM, Jason wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_i1NKPzbjM So what do you think? Is it conscious? Bremt -- 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: Uploaded Worm Mind
I think so. It is at least as conscious as C. Elegans. Jason On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/28/2015 3:00 PM, Jason wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_i1NKPzbjM So what do you think? Is it conscious? Bremt -- 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.
Uploaded Worm Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_i1NKPzbjM Jason -- 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.
