Re: Asifism revisited.
Le 13-juil.-07, à 20:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit : >> >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : >>> ... Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. >>> But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic >>> results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic >>> is impossible. >> >> >> I don't understand. >> >> Let us define ARITHMETIC (big case) by the set of true (first order >> logical) arithmetical sentences. (like "prime number exist", >> Let us define arithmetic (lower case) by the set of provable (first >> order logical) arithmetical sentences, where "provable" means provable >> by some sound lobian machine. >> By incompleteness, whatever sound machine you consisder the >> corresponding "arithmetic" is always a proper subset of ARITHMETIC. >> >> So arithmetical truth (alias ARITHMETIC) cannot be described by any >> finite set of rules. Finite sets or rules can never generate the whole >> of arithmetical truth. >> >> OK? >> >> Bruno > > Yes, I understand. But ARITHMETIC is generated by or results from > Peano's axioms - right? Only a tiny part of ARITHMETIC (the set of all true arithmetical sentenses, or the set of their godel-number) is generated by the Peano Axioms. Even ZF genererate a little tiny part (but bigger than PA) of ARITHMETIC. >> "existence" is a very very tricky notion. In the theory I am proposing >> (actually I derived it from the comp principle) the most basic notion >> of "exists" is remarkably well formalize by first order arithmetical >> logic, like in Ex(prime(x)): it exists a prime number. > > But isn't this just an elaboration that obscures the prior assumption > that numbers exist? I don't think so. This was clearly assumed at the start. Natural numbers are really something you cannot get from less. Actually in Peano you can prove the existence of each individual number by proving each formula like Ex(x=0), Ex(x = s(0)), Ex(x = s(s(0))) > If numbers don't exist then Ex(prime(x)) is false, or requires a > different interpretation of "E". Sure. (I am not sure where is your problem) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Brent Meeker skrev: > Torgny Tholerus wrote: >> >> That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete >> description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a >> number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To get to the >> current view of our universe you have to do about 10**60 computations >> for every point of space...) > > How did you arrive at that number? > It is the number of Planck times since the birth of Universe. The age of Universe is 13,7 billion years, number of seconds in a year is 31 million, and the Planck time is 5,4 * 10**-44 seconds. That gives 13,7*10**9 * 31*10**6 / (5,4*10**-44) = 8*10**60. -- Torgny --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : >> ... >>> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting >>> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the >>> result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical >>> universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little >>> Peano >>> Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. >> But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic >> results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic >> is impossible. > > > I don't understand. > > Let us define ARITHMETIC (big case) by the set of true (first order > logical) arithmetical sentences. (like "prime number exist", > Let us define arithmetic (lower case) by the set of provable (first > order logical) arithmetical sentences, where "provable" means provable > by some sound lobian machine. > By incompleteness, whatever sound machine you consisder the > corresponding "arithmetic" is always a proper subset of ARITHMETIC. > > So arithmetical truth (alias ARITHMETIC) cannot be described by any > finite set of rules. Finite sets or rules can never generate the whole > of arithmetical truth. > > OK? > > Bruno Yes, I understand. But ARITHMETIC is generated by or results from Peano's axioms - right? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Brent Meeker skrev: >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : >>> >> ... >> >>> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting >>> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the >>> result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical >>> universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano >>> Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. >>> >> >> But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from >> Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible. >> > That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete > description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a > number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To get to the > current view of our universe you have to do about 10**60 computations > for every point of space...) How did you arrive at that number? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Le 12-juil.-07, à 18:43, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > ... >> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting >> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. >> >> >> >> >> Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the >> result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical >> universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little >> Peano >> Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. > > But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic > results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic > is impossible. I don't understand. Let us define ARITHMETIC (big case) by the set of true (first order logical) arithmetical sentences. (like "prime number exist", Let us define arithmetic (lower case) by the set of provable (first order logical) arithmetical sentences, where "provable" means provable by some sound lobian machine. By incompleteness, whatever sound machine you consisder the corresponding "arithmetic" is always a proper subset of ARITHMETIC. So arithmetical truth (alias ARITHMETIC) cannot be described by any finite set of rules. Finite sets or rules can never generate the whole of arithmetical truth. OK? Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Brent Meeker skrev: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : ... Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible. That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To get to the current view of our universe you have to do about 10**60 computations for every point of space...) -- Torgny --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : ... > Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting > thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. > > > > > Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the > result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical > universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano > Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules. But it can be "the result of" a finite set of rules. Arithmetic results from Peano's axioms, but a complete description of arithmetic is impossible. > The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee > is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an > infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*), > which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any > piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning). > It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to > the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference > and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the > degree of plausibility of comp. > > > Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Quentin Anciaux skrev: >> I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules. Just >> as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe >> the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the >> GoL-rules... >> > What are your "proofs" or set of evidences that our universe as it is > is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable. > There are two "proofs": A) Everything is finite. So our universe must be the result from a finite set of rules. B) Occams razor. Because we can explain everything in our universe from this finite set of rules, we don't need anything more complicated. > If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly > equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ? > Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe. A model is more like a picture of our universe. You can make a model of a GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots, but still there will hold the same relations in both these models. It is the relations that are the important things. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
> I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules. Just > as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe > the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the > GoL-rules... > > -- > Torgny Tholerus What are your "proofs" or set of evidences that our universe as it is is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable. If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ? Quentin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.
Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.
When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the
same way as our universe is existing.
The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a
intended model ("universe") admits automatically an infinity of non
isomorphic models (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).
Yes, you are right, the word "model" is not quite appropriate here.
The universe is not a model that satisfies a set of axioms.
The kind of rules I am thinking of, is rather that kind of rules you
have in Game of Life. When you have a situation at one moment of time
and at one place in space, you can compute the situation the next
moment of time at the same place by using the situations near this
place. The important thing is that the rules uniquely describes the
whole universe by applying the rules over and over again.
(But I want something more general than GoL-like rules, because the
GoL-rules presupposes that you have a space-time from the beginning. I
want a set of rules that are such that the space-time is a result of
the rules. But I don't know how to get there...)
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical
universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little
Peano Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of
rules.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of
coffee is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of
an infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment
(UD*), which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate
exactly any piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond
to the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp
interference and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure
experimentally the degree of plausibility of comp.
I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules.
Just as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is
our universe the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more
complicated than the GoL-rules...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>>> David Nyman skrev:
>>>
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting
and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of
'existence'.
>>> 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes.
>>> Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The
>>> truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.
>>>
>> I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in
>> my
>> opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
>> perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.
>>
>
> Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.
>
> When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe
> from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited
> number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the
> same way as our universe is existing.
The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a
intended model ("universe") admits automatically an infinity of non
isomorphic models (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).
>
> Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical
universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee
is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an
infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*),
which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any
piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to
the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference
and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the
degree of plausibility of comp.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 10/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I am not bored I'm glad to hear you're not a zombie after all :) > If I look at our universe from the outside I'd like to know how you perform this feat. > I see that I will do something > tomorrow I don't doubt it. But this is my point: your ability to 'see' this depends on your being able to discriminate differences dynamically. You may nevertheless believe that, from a "gods' eye" perspective, the context which instantiates this is nonetheless 'static'. But this should surely be a sharp reminder that we aren't gods. We can't "look at our universe from the outside". We can only pose it questions 'from within', and both the manner of our enquiring, and the content of the answers we receive, are consequently constrained in highly specific ways. This, I think, is the point of Bruno's methodology. It's also the point of my insistence on 'reflexivity'. The "gods' eye view" is a just manner of speaking, not a manner of 'existing'. David > > David Nyman skrev: > On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always > static. > > Then you must get very bored ;) > > David > > But I am not bored, because I don't know what will happen tomorrow. If I > look at our universe from the outside, I see that I will do something > tomorrow, and I see what will happen in one million years. There will never > be any changes in the situations that will happen in the future. > > But it is impossible to know today what will happen in the future, because > we can not have total knowledge about how the universe looks like just now. > If we try to find the exact position and the exact speed of an electron, > then that electron will be disturbed by me looking at it. So it is > impossible for me to compute how our universe will look like tomorrow. But > the rules of our universe decide what our universe will look like tomorrow. > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
David Nyman skrev: On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always static. Then you must get very bored ;) David But I am not bored, because I don't know what will happen tomorrow. If I look at our universe from the outside, I see that I will do something tomorrow, and I see what will happen in one million years. There will never be any changes in the situations that will happen in the future. But it is impossible to know today what will happen in the future, because we can not have total knowledge about how the universe looks like just now. If we try to find the exact position and the exact speed of an electron, then that electron will be disturbed by me looking at it. So it is impossible for me to compute how our universe will look like tomorrow. But the rules of our universe decide what our universe will look like tomorrow. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always > static. Then you must get very bored ;) David > > > > On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Because > > > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > > > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > > > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > > > universes. > > > > We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about > > reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what > > the "stuff" might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the > > 'zombie world' seriously. In fact, as I've said, I think you would > > have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in > > order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could > > hardly be claimed to be "exactly the same". > > There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always > static. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
(Reposted because of some techical problems...) On Jul 7, 2:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > > > > David Nyman skrev: > >> You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and > >> important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. > > 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. > > Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The > > truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. > > I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my > opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model > perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism. Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model. When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the same way as our universe is existing. Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Because > > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > > universes. > > We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about > reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what > the "stuff" might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the > 'zombie world' seriously. In fact, as I've said, I think you would > have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in > order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could > hardly be claimed to be "exactly the same". There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always static. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe. > But we can look at the objects in an other universe. I would say that the conjunction of the above two sentences is a contradiction. > Because > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > universes. We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what the "stuff" might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the 'zombie world' seriously. In fact, as I've said, I think you would have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could hardly be claimed to be "exactly the same". However, Bruno doesn't necessarily agree with me on this, so from a comp perspective, if you say you're a zombie, I can only sympathise ;) David > > David Nyman skrev: > > Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects. > > > It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe. One object > in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe. > > But we can look at the objects in an other universe. Just in the same > way that we can look at a GoL-universe. So we in the A-Universe can > look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing. > > One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in > the A-Universe. If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe, > then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe. Because > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > universes. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote: David Nyman skrev: You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism. Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model. When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the same way as our universe is existing. Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
David Nyman skrev: > Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects. > It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe. One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe. But we can look at the objects in an other universe. Just in the same way that we can look at a GoL-universe. So we in the A-Universe can look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing. One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in the A-Universe. If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe, then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe. Because everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both universes. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For us humans are the universes that contain observers more > interesting. But there is no qualitaive difference between universes > with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the > same way. I still disagree, but I have a slightly different formulation of my previous replies which might be more consistent with my remarks to Bruno re the 1-personal discrimination of self-relation as 'action' or 'behaviour'. Essentially, if we conceive of the plenitude of all possible universes as existing 'statically', then the recovery of 'dynamic' or temporal existence must be seen as characteristic of 1-personal self-relation: that is, 1-persons are active participants, not merely 'observers'. What I said to Bruno was that my justification was simply that such a brute claim seems to be required if dynamism is to be recovered at all from stasis. I'm less sure however that such a claim is strictly 'necessary' in the logical sense. Given this, I suppose it is possible to conceive of a B-Universe in which this brute claim is not granted. IOW no aspect of the self-relation of the B-Universe is characteristically dynamic or 1-personal. Such a universe would be static in all aspects - 'inside' and 'outside' - and consequently it would contain no active participants and consequently none of the "stuff" characteristic of such participative behaviour. However, such a static universe could not, by the same token, be claimed to be "exactly the same" as the A-Universe, precisely because nothing whatsoever could be said to 'happen' to any object it instantiates. The points I made earlier about the mutual inaccessibility of A and B-Universes still stand. Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects. In some sense 'interviews' between B-Universe structures could be said to exist, but not to 'occur'. The content of the statements of B-Universe objects about their internal states would be similarly 'justified' in terms of static self-relation as those in the A-Universe, but it wouldn't indeed be 'like anything to be' a B-Universe object. What is really interesting about this is it suggests that the notion of consciousness as equating to 'what it's like to be' something is incoherent. Rather, consciousness seems more 'what it's like to enact' something. Consequently, the 'absolute' quality of consciousness is just what its like for the One (per Plotinus) to enact particular kinds of self-relation. And such quality indeed seems 'absolute' as opposed to 'relative', because it doesn't seem logically necessary for such enaction to emerge 1-personally from static self-relation. It's just that our own case demonstrates its 'absolute' contingency in the A-Universe. So zombies may be possible, but not in the A-Universe, and consequently we needn't fear ever being fooled by one in any accessible encounter. What this amounts to is understanding 'consciousness' essentially as the recovery of dynamism from stasis, or active participation from instantiation, or time from eternity, or the A-series from the B-series. It's also treating 'dynamism' as 'experientiaI' rather than 'physical', which of course is moot. But I've never seen any really satisfactory direct treatment of dynamism with respect to static formulations of existence except as a brute assertion, or mere implication, of its being characteristic of 1-personal self-relation to appropriate structure. Perhaps Bruno could comment whether this way of looking at things is consistent with comp? For example, it might seem that 'dovetailing' carries some implication of dynamism, or at least sequentiality, with it from the outset. Alternatively, if a static background is not granted, then in such a view dynamism is already at the heart of self-relation, and with it, the necessary return of 1-personal participation. However, a fundamentally 'tensed' view of reality presents its own (particularly structural) problems, which are kettle of fish for a different discussion. David > > David Nyman skrev: > > You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and > > important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. > 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. > Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The > truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. > > 2. If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there > exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition. > Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and > from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation, > and this can be done for ever. This unlimited set of situations will be > a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers. > Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations > will exist anyhow. > > 3. All mathmatically poss
Re: Asifism revisited.
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > David Nyman skrev: >> You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and >> important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. > 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. > Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The > truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism. > > 2. If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there > exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition. > Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and > from this new situation it is possible to compute another new > situation, > and this can be done for ever. This unlimited set of situations will > be > a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers. > Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations > will exist anyhow. OK, but I would mention bifurcating computations (with respect to Oracle or just Universal machine ...) > > 3. All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in > the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our > universe exists independant of any humans or any observers. I can agree or disagree with the first sentence. It is too fuzzy. I disagree with the second sentence. I have argued that the comp assumption you should say "our universes" (note the "s"), and strictly speaking all (accessible) universes are ours. Of course "universes", or better (imo) computational histories (up to some equivalence) exists independent of observers, like the fact that machine A on argument B stops or does not stops independently of me. > > 4. For us humans are the universes that contain observers more > interesting. Oh! Surely the discovery of a baby tiny universe would be interesting, even without observers (like the moon is not so bad ...) > But there is no qualitaive difference between universes > with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the > same way. It really depends what you mean by "universe". This cannot be an obvious notion in the comp setting. Have you read the UDA up to step 7 (at least) ? > The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a > separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe. But because > we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and > we > are specially interested in our own universe. Again what do you mean by our own "universe"? Are you meaning Deutsch Multiverse or the comp-many computations seen from inside ? I think that apparent universes emerge from personal gluing of histories. > But otherwise there is > noting special with our universe. There is nothing special about our historical geographies I would say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TT: All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our universe exists independant of any humans or any observers. DN: But here at the heart of your argument is the confusion again over language. If we grant that a mathematically possible universe exists 'independently' (i.e. other than as a sub-structure of the A-Universe) it - and all consequences flowing from it - must exist self-relatively. This is the crucial entailment of 'independent' existence, as we discussed before. And it exposes the confusion of the two distinct senses of 'independent'. The first sense is of course that an independent universe does not 'depend' on any observers it instantiates to grant it existence (i.e. they don't 'cause' it to exist). It's in just this sense that it's 'independent' or self-relative, and this is the sense you rely on. But the second and crucial sense flows directly out of this 'self-relative independence': which is that any self-relative universe capable of generating the necessary structure simply *entails* the existence of 'observers' (i.e. self-relative sub-structures). IOW, self-relation is what observation *is*. It's in precisely this crucial sense that an 'independently existing universe' is not 'independent of observation'. On the contrary: it *entails* observation. And of course our existence as observers in self-relation to the A-Universe demonstrates this 'dependency' in precisely this critical sense. David > > David Nyman skrev: > > You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and > > important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. > 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. > Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The > truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. > > 2. If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there > exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition. > Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and > from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation, > and this can be done for ever. This unlimited set of situations will be > a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers. > Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations > will exist anyhow. > > 3. All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in > the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our > universe exists independant of any humans or any observers. > > 4. For us humans are the universes that contain observers more > interesting. But there is no qualitaive difference between universes > with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the > same way. The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a > separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe. But because > we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and we > are specially interested in our own universe. But otherwise there is > noting special with our universe. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
David Nyman skrev: > You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and > important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. 2. If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition. Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation, and this can be done for ever. This unlimited set of situations will be a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers. Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations will exist anyhow. 3. All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our universe exists independant of any humans or any observers. 4. For us humans are the universes that contain observers more interesting. But there is no qualitaive difference between universes with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the same way. The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe. But because we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and we are specially interested in our own universe. But otherwise there is noting special with our universe. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 04/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TT: You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the "gliders" move. If you look at "Conway's game of Life" in Wikipedia, you can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner. This is possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe. DN: Please, if we are to make progress, may we have more precision? You clearly specified a hypothetical B-Universe which you invited us to consider might be different in some fundamental way to ours. GoL is clearly in no way a different 'universe' in this sense - you're making a loose, conversational use of the term which has an entirely different entailment. GoL is a part of the A-Universe just as we are, so as integral observers of course we can observe it. You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. When we perform the thought experiment, we cause a B-Universe to 'exist'. What kind of existence is this? Well, it's a thought pattern, so you may wish to consider it as an aspect of brain, or mind, or both. Either way, its part of us, and as such, its 'existence' consists of participation in the A-Universe. Simply put, the entailment of 'existence' is participation. So we may grant real existence to the *idea* of the B-Universe whilst recognising that its putative reference is non-existent in the A-Universe. Nevertheless, we may still 'flesh-out' the metaphor of the B-Universe, but crucially, if we are to do so without misleading ourselves, we must grant events within it the equivalent category of actual - not metaphorical - existence as that possessed by events within the A-Universe: that of participation, or self-relation. David David Nyman skrev: > > On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A > and B side by side, interviewing their occupants. > > DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight > of imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss. When one imagines > the 'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one constructs precisely > the false relationship that is the source of the confusion with respect to > consciousness. Any possible observer must in fact be integral to their own > universe. > > You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the > "gliders" move. If you look at "Conway's game of Life" in Wikipedia, you > can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner. This is > possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe. > > The same is true about the B-Universe. You can look at it as an outside > observer. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
You're doing a giant step for considering current GoL as an universe... but anyway you can, but it's not because you see one glider in your tiny framed GoL that the interaction of billions of cells does not generate a consciousness inside the GoL universe and you as an "external" observer couldn't see/recognize it as it is. Quentin 2007/7/4, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > David Nyman skrev: > On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A > and B side by side, interviewing their occupants. > > DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight of > imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss. When one imagines the > 'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one constructs precisely the > false relationship that is the source of the confusion with respect to > consciousness. Any possible observer must in fact be integral to their own > universe. > You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the > "gliders" move. If you look at "Conway's game of Life" in Wikipedia, you > can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner. This is > possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe. > > The same is true about the B-Universe. You can look at it as an outside > observer. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
David Nyman skrev: On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A and B side by side, interviewing their occupants. DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight of imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss. When one imagines the 'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one constructs precisely the false relationship that is the source of the confusion with respect to consciousness. Any possible observer must in fact be integral to their own universe. You can look at the Game-of-Life-Universe, where you can see how the "gliders" move. If you look at "Conway's game of Life" in Wikipedia, you can look at how the Glider Gun is working in the top right corner. This is possible although there is no observer integral to that Universe. The same is true about the B-Universe. You can look at it as an outside observer. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Your example suppose many things which are not granted to be possible: 1- The one who compare them is in neither of them... What is comparing these universes ? a conscious being ? 2- The fact that they are identical implies that both have consciousness. If one really lacked it then they would be no one to ask what it feels as they're would be no person in it and that would be a huge difference. I don't remember having read participants of this list arguing for a dualism of consciousness. Consciousness must be a process created by properties of this universe, it is not a component that can be thrown out, it is part of it. If behavior is the same as a conscious being (please mind that for this comparison you acknowledge the existence of at least one to compare) then the being is conscious too. You can't say they're the same but are different, it is not consistant. Regards, Quentin 2007/7/4, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Jason skrev: > > Note that you did not say "thought" was non-existent in B-universe, I > > think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection > > of a large number of simultaneous thoughts. > I had the intention to include "thoughts", but I was unsure about how to > spell that word (where to put all those "h":s...), so I included the > thoughts in "all that kind of stuff". The B-Universe should not include > any thouths(!). The B-Universe should be a strictly materialistic Universe. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Jason skrev: > Note that you did not say "thought" was non-existent in B-universe, I > think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection > of a large number of simultaneous thoughts. I had the intention to include "thoughts", but I was unsure about how to spell that word (where to put all those "h":s...), so I included the thoughts in "all that kind of stuff". The B-Universe should not include any thouths(!). The B-Universe should be a strictly materialistic Universe. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On Jul 3, 10:07 am, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as > the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second > Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.) > > This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a > hydrogen atom in A-Universe, there will also be a hydrogen atom in > B-Universe, and everywhere that there is an oxygen atom in A-Universe, > there will be an oxygen atom i B-universe. The only difference between > A-Universe and B-Universe is that B-Universe is totally free from > consciousness, feelings, minds, souls, and all that kind of stuff. The > only things that exist in B-Universe are atoms reacting with eachother. > All objects in B-Universe behave in exactly the same way as the objects > in A-Universe. > > The objects in B-Universe produces the same kind of sounds as we produce > in A-Universe, and the objects in B-Universe pushes the same buttons on > their computers as we do in our A-Universe. > > Questions: > > Is B-Universe possible? In my opinion, for B-universe to be particle-for-particle identical to A-universe yet not contain consciousness/feelings/minds/souls it requires that consciousness as it appears in A-universe is due to some manner of dualism, that is to say, consciousness in A-universe must not be an innate feature of the material, mathematical or informational structures that correspond to observers. > If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer, > if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"? > I assume you are looking for people who will say B-universe is possible, and that the non-conscious observers will answer identically to those in A-universe, thereby proving that consciousness is an unneeded theory to be done away with by Occam's razor. In any case if the atoms interact identically in both universes the B-universe occupants will answer the same way as A-universe observers, but I don't think it is possible for B-universe occupants to be non- conscious. Here is why: Note that you did not say "thought" was non-existent in B-universe, I think one can construct complex conscious awareness to the collection of a large number of simultaneous thoughts. Let me define the most basic thought as an excited/firing neuron which is increasing the likelihood of neighboring neurons firing. Now consider the most primitive form of vision possible for an organism, it is only able to tell lightness from darkness and only see one pixel. The information content of its vision is a single bit. The conscious experience of seeing white could correspond to a certain neuron firing, which though its neural network increases the likelihood of thoughts such as warmth, safety, daytime, etc. And also increases the likelihood of certain behaviors, such as saying "I see white." This will be the same in both A and B universes. Now scale up the capabilities of that primitive vision to human vision, which contains hundreds of millions of pixels, differentiating millions of colors, and receiving new information from the optic nerve at 1 Gbps. The current state of your brain's visual center corresponds to billions of individual, simultaneous, and involuntary "thoughts"; this I believe is responsible for the phenomenon of consciousness, and you can't eliminate it without also eliminating the functionality of the brain. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 04/07/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SP: We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A and B side by side, interviewing their occupants. DN: Yes, and my point precisely is that this is an illegitimate sleight of imagination where the thought experiment goes amiss. When one imagines the 'external' observer 'looking' at two universes, one constructs precisely the false relationship that is the source of the confusion with respect to consciousness. Any possible observer must in fact be integral to their own universe. David > On 04/07/07, David Nyman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > TT: This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. > > > > DN: IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here. No > universe > > can "look" like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an > > 'observer' who is an embedded sub-structure of that universe. The > "looking" > > that you refer to here is an illusory artefact of syntax - i.e. the > relation > > is to an imaginative construct which in fact is part of A-Universe. IOW > > this sort of 'existence' is a metaphor which is relative to *us*, not > the > > self-relation of any realisable B-Universe. What you describe as > B-Universe > > "looking exactly the same" is really an implicit relation to an observer > in > > *that* universe, and consequently that observer is already accepted as > > conscious. Alternatively, it doesn't "look" like anything to anyone, > and > > hence is by no stretch of the imagination "exactly the same". > > We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A > and B side by side, interviewing their occupants. > > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 04/07/07, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TT: This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. > > DN: IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here. No universe > can "look" like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an > 'observer' who is an embedded sub-structure of that universe. The "looking" > that you refer to here is an illusory artefact of syntax - i.e. the relation > is to an imaginative construct which in fact is part of A-Universe. IOW > this sort of 'existence' is a metaphor which is relative to *us*, not the > self-relation of any realisable B-Universe. What you describe as B-Universe > "looking exactly the same" is really an implicit relation to an observer in > *that* universe, and consequently that observer is already accepted as > conscious. Alternatively, it doesn't "look" like anything to anyone, and > hence is by no stretch of the imagination "exactly the same". We can imagine an external observer looking at two model universes A and B side by side, interviewing their occupants. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as > the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second > Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.) > > This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a > hydrogen atom in A-Universe, there will also be a hydrogen atom in > B-Universe, and everywhere that there is an oxygen atom in A-Universe, > there will be an oxygen atom i B-universe. The only difference between > A-Universe and B-Universe is that B-Universe is totally free from > consciousness, feelings, minds, souls, and all that kind of stuff. The > only things that exist in B-Universe are atoms reacting with eachother. > All objects in B-Universe behave in exactly the same way as the objects > in A-Universe. > > The objects in B-Universe produces the same kind of sounds as we produce > in A-Universe, and the objects in B-Universe pushes the same buttons on > their computers as we do in our A-Universe. > > Questions: > > Is B-Universe possible? > If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer, > if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"? > > So far as I know, consciousness is some processes in (at least some) human brains. Since B-universe would have brains with the same processes, I'd say those objects would answer, "Yes." with the same likelihood as in this universe - in other words I don't think there's any difference between the A-universe and the B-universe. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 03/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TT: This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. DN: IMO your thought experiment might as well stop right here. No universe can "look" like anything to anyone except a participant in it - i.e. an 'observer' who is an embedded sub-structure of that universe. The "looking" that you refer to here is an illusory artefact of syntax - i.e. the relation is to an imaginative construct which in fact is part of A-Universe. IOW this sort of 'existence' is a metaphor which is relative to *us*, not the self-relation of any realisable B-Universe. What you describe as B-Universe "looking exactly the same" is really an implicit relation to an observer in *that* universe, and consequently that observer is already accepted as conscious. Alternatively, it doesn't "look" like anything to anyone, and hence is by no stretch of the imagination "exactly the same". TT: Is B-Universe possible? DN: If you mean could it exist independently of our imagining it in A-Universe, then yes - as long as we postulate that it exists self-relatively, as opposed to relative-to-us. TT: If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer, if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"? DN: We cannot interview an object in a self-relative B-Universe, because we can have no relation to it. If an object in a possible (i.e. self-relative) B-Universe interviews another object and asks it "Are you conscious", this equates to "Do you self-relate?", to which the answer would be yes, given your other assumptions. IOW, the possible B-Universe is in fact a clone of A-Universe. Notice that we're not concerned with absolute 'qualities' here because these can only be known to participants. What is relevant is the self-relation and reflexivity of participants, and realising that there is a language trap in trying to perform these thought experiments with mental constructs that allow us the illusion of abstracting 'universes' from their necessarily participatory contexts. David > Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as > the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second > Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.) > > This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a > hydrogen atom in A-Universe, there will also be a hydrogen atom in > B-Universe, and everywhere that there is an oxygen atom in A-Universe, > there will be an oxygen atom i B-universe. The only difference between > A-Universe and B-Universe is that B-Universe is totally free from > consciousness, feelings, minds, souls, and all that kind of stuff. The > only things that exist in B-Universe are atoms reacting with eachother. > All objects in B-Universe behave in exactly the same way as the objects > in A-Universe. > > The objects in B-Universe produces the same kind of sounds as we produce > in A-Universe, and the objects in B-Universe pushes the same buttons on > their computers as we do in our A-Universe. > > Questions: > > Is B-Universe possible? > If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer, > if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"? > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Asifism revisited.
Imagine that we have a second Universe, that looks exactly the same as the materialistic parts of our Universe. We may call this second Universe B-Universe. (Our Universe is A-Universe.) This B-Universe looks exactly the same as A-Universe. Where there is a hydrogen atom in A-Universe, there will also be a hydrogen atom in B-Universe, and everywhere that there is an oxygen atom in A-Universe, there will be an oxygen atom i B-universe. The only difference between A-Universe and B-Universe is that B-Universe is totally free from consciousness, feelings, minds, souls, and all that kind of stuff. The only things that exist in B-Universe are atoms reacting with eachother. All objects in B-Universe behave in exactly the same way as the objects in A-Universe. The objects in B-Universe produces the same kind of sounds as we produce in A-Universe, and the objects in B-Universe pushes the same buttons on their computers as we do in our A-Universe. Questions: Is B-Universe possible? If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer, if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"? -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
