I agree. They are both pointers to the same abstract computation.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.
2009/2/10 Brent Meeker
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> >> St
I did think about what word to use there - and while I don't _believe_ believe
it, I would be _very_ surprised to be proved wrong :D . And besides, any
other word seems like a bit of a fudge.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six othe
I wrote it for my friends, but feel free to criticise!
http://rosyatrandom.livejournal.com/35445.html
_
Perhaps it's time I had another go at explaining all that weird stuff I
believe in and why.
Well, for those few that don't know, I reckon that all possible u
My understanding is that the set of possible histories and future at any
point are made up of eigenstates - and that the way a system splits into
eigenstates is dependent upon the question you ask it. For example, it may
split into momentum/position eigenstates, or along some other conjugal
framewo
This distinction between physicalism and materialism, with materialism
allowing for features to emerge, it sounds to me like a join-the-dots puzzle
- the physical substrate provides the dots, but the supervening system also
contains lines - abstract structures implied by but not contained within th
This business of histories not interacting... does the Bell Inequality have
some bearing here? My intuition is that the universe behaves classically
while it's linked to consciousness - quantum interference is fine as long as
it leaves no 'split-states' hanging around to be
observed/otherwise-direc
There's a quote you might like, by Korzybski: "That which makes no
difference _is_ no difference."
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.
2008/11/26 Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MGA 3
>
> It is the last MGA !
>
>
d possibly, even in
concept, have some hidden consciousness behind it does so.
2008/11/25 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > I don't know about anyone else, but with the volume of mail we're
> > getting lately, I've been skimming things a
I don't know about anyone else, but with the volume of mail we're getting
lately, I've been skimming things and have started to lose the plot
completely.
So, perhaps it's time for a fresh start. My idea of where we are is this:
Physical causality is just a 'linkage' between states - it's nothing
This is one of those questions were I'm not sure if I'm being relevant or
missing the point entirely, but here goes:
There are multiple universes which implement/contain/whatever Alice's
consciousness. During the period of the experiment, that universe may no
longer be amongst them but shadows alo
Are not logic gates black boxes, though? Does it really matter what happens
between Input and Output? In which case, it has absolutely no bearing on
Alice's consciousness whether the gate's a neuron, an electronic doodah, a
team of well-trained monkeys or a lucky quantum event or synchronicity. It
ge to think that we might perceive entirely
> new sets of lifetime memories from Planck-second to Planck-second as we move
> through the cloud of possible universes. (Or do I have it completely wrong?)
> marty a.
>
>
> *
>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
>
> If there is a sp
If there is a split, does it create differentiated consciousnesses? I doubt
it. Perhaps there are two main causes of splitting: where an event would
cause different 'observables', or where an event by necessity breaks the
mechanism of consciousness into different streams. In the latter case, there
If you look at the structure and relationships of maths, it's all rather an
incestuous family tree anyway. You can get from any one point to another if
you try hard enough. It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Now think of any
physical system embedded in the maths. It's easy enough to get to other
p
2008/11/15 Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2008/11/15 Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 'Nothing' := 'Something' -> 'Everything'
>
> Just what I was saying!
>
I was about to say that...
--~--~-~--~--
much abstraction on the
substrate as you like, it doesn't matter how small it is - it can even be
completely nothing. My simplistic version works like this:
'Nothing' := 'Something' -> 'Everything'
2008/11/15 Kory Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
Take this level of abstraction much further and what you have essentially is
the 'dust theory' from Greg Egan's Permutation City.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.
2008/11/15 Kory Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> On
I've always thought - and this might just be betraying my lack of
understanding - that these are simply two sides of the same coin: we can't
distinguish between these quantum events, so we can consider ourselves as
either being a classical being 'above' a sea of quantum noise, or as being a
bundle
I think the most compelling arguments against a fundamental physical reality
go along the lines of starting with one, and showing you can abstract away
from it until it becomes just another arbitrary perspective.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That
on this list and this universe only
> /o\
>
> 2008/11/11 Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Look at it this way, you probably did unsubscribe. Just not in this
> > universe. Sorry.
> >
> > --
> > - Did you ever hear of
Look at it this way, you probably did unsubscribe. Just not in this
universe. Sorry.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.
2008/11/10 Joao Leao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> unsubscribe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~-
If I may,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory
The basic concept is that every model is composed of a set of elements, a
set of n-ary relations between them, a set of constants and symbols, plus a
set of axiomatic sentences to define it. It's been a few years since my
mathematical logic MSc t
Isn't a zombie equivalent to, say, a spreadsheet that doesn't really perform
the proper calculations, but produces all the right answers for all the data
and functions you happen to put in?
It seems like such an elaborate con-job is far more inefficient and
intensive (and pointlessly so) once you
TED]>
>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > I think there's so many different questions involved in this topic
> > it's going to be hard to sort them out. There's 'what produces our
> > sense of self', 'how can continuity of identity be quantified',
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What are you calling "the process" when you've made two copies of it?
>
> Bretn
>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > But, given that they are processes, then by definition they are
> > characterised by changing states.
But, given that they are processes, then by definition they are
characterised by changing states. If we have some uncertainty regarding the
exact mechanics of that process, or the external input, then we can draw an
extradimensional state-space in which the degrees of uncertainty correspond
to new
This is very close to the starting premise of Greg Egan's Permutation City,
which suggests that since computation take place in increasingly arbitrary
ways, the digital basis of consciousness can be derived from pretty much any
physical substrate and hence all minds are generated by all things.
2
I'd love to make a serious comment at this point, but every one I can think
of involves "I am Spartacus" jokes. Sorry.
2008/11/1 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > 2008/10/31 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
At some point, doesn't it just become far more likely that the teleporter
just doesn't work? I know that might seem like dodging the question, but it
might be fundamentally impossible to ignore all possibilities.
2008/10/30 Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> 200
You say 'THIS WORLD we see now,' but I don't really think of myself as being
in a world - instead, being in a 'world-set'.
- 3-line Narnia -
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and
Absolutely, I don't think anyone could question this. Sensations are so
filtered and processed that the sensorium we experience is pretty much just
an elaborate fabrication of the brain... and no perception,
memory-association or thought comes naked into our qualia - they all have
some emotional dr
ce
reconverged there's no distinguishing between them - 'that which makes no
difference is no difference.' It means that they share their
underlying-possible-universes set and are just one branch again.
2008/10/23 Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't think I fol
I don't think I follow you. This is the exact feeling I get when I try to
read Pynchon...
OK, I think what you're saying is that when it comes to reconstructing the
body with only knowledge of the mind itself, much of the exact physical
characteristics are ambiguous, in that they don't contribute
Interesting idea. But obviously 'memories' is quite unquantative when you
get down to it: all memories are not equal, some are stored in
longer/shorter-term memories and have differing levels of cross-association
with each other and emotional states, some are being accessed right now, and
personal
ective, and the
definitions we're working with are somewhat on the hazy side....
2008/10/22 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > Oh, no, more that we can probably define 'mind-space' or
> > 'consciousness-space', in wh
imals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
- McSweeney's -
2008/10/22 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1) My thought
Hi,
1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 'push'
the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely scenario - any
situation where death is probable requires an improbable get-out clause. The
patient may well find themselves in a world where their suffering i
o build a computer, but they all rely on some way
create processes that are the equivalent of logic gates.
I'll stop aimlessly rambling now :D
2008/10/14 Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
>
> And of course you could always add - all poss
And of course you could always add - all possible instances of
- 3-line Narnia -
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
-
Why should there be only one correct TOE? Can't we simultaneously inhabit
alternative universes that are currently indistinguishable to us yet differ
on a fundamental level?
- 3-line Narnia -
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITC
Even if the Koch Snowflake is restricted to those 3 angles, you don't have
to be restricted to the Snowflake itself -- by expanding, contracting or
transforming the space of interest, you can get somewhere more interesting
(anywhere you want, maybe?). For example, if you take the natural numbers,
y
nistic product (complexity),
> as far as its entailment is concerned. I don't understand "holy trinities" -
> yours included.
>
> "Growing out" your -it*- requires IMO the substrates it* grows by, - by
> addition - I dislike miraculous creations. A crystal gr
"You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple parts"
That would be the case if we were trying to reconstruct an arbitrary
universe, but you were talking about 'the totality'. My take is that the
whole caboodle is not arbitrary - it's totally specified by its requirement
to be complete.
To pull a fatuous idea from where the sun doth not shine, what if energy is
merely moving 'between universes'; it is conserved just because of
statistical balance.
On 17/04/2008, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure what source of photon creation you have in mind, but QFT
> d
It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more entropy
where the energy is taken from.
On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is being
> expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not i
Even though I believe in QI, I try not to be too blase with my life due to
the guilt I'd feel for all sorrow I'd cause my friends & family in the
worlds I died in.
I also think the mathematical laws underlying the universes we are in are
also subject to anthropic multiplicity; we don't just filter
No, it just means no-one's put enough stress on the 2nd Law yet :)
Besides, it's not so much a law as a guideline. Well, a strong statistical
tendency
On 15/04/2008, nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, a
> physicist r
mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *För *Michael Rosefield
> *Skickat:* den 1 april 2008 21:30
> *Till:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Ämne:* Re: Neuroquantology
>
>
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/01/poltergeists-and-qua.html
>
> I think that answers that question
>
>
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/01/poltergeists-and-qua.html
I think that answers that question
On 28/03/2008, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I just had a cold call from an editor of a fairly new journal called
> NeuroQuantology (http://www.neuroquantology.com/), which ha
Surely consciousness is both granular (much of what we are conscious of is
pre-processed by the brain and body, and not part of our direct experience.
This gives a huge amount of leeway for underlying ambiguity) and limiting
(two people holding hands or talking do not become one conscious entity).
> From: "James Higgo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So what is it, this mystical soul, that 'transits' OMs?
The more I think about this, the more I end up running around in circles
I think the transit is just a hypothetical one; _if_ OMa iterated to OMb, it
would be consistent.
However, I cannot h
this is what's called cosmic irony, isn't it?
- Original Message -
From:
Saibal Mitra
To: Michael Rosefield ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 4:16
PM
Subject: Re: excuse the triple (!)
posting
Maybe Jürgen can explain why the
>
From: James Higgo
> Before I was blind but
now I see.
> I was the one who came
up with the expression, 'Quantum Theory of Immortality', and I now see that it's
false - > and all this stuff in this thread is based on the same mistake. See
www.higgo.com/qti , a site dedicated to
th
these things just happen, eh?
n which are more fundamental - minds
or universes? I'd say they're both definable and hence exist de facto, and that
each implies the other.
Well, I'm new here. Is there anything I should know about
this list? Apart from the fact that everyone's so terribly educated...
n which are more fundamental - minds
or universes? I'd say they're both definable and hence exist de facto, and that
each implies the other.
Well, I'm new here. Is there anything I should know about
this list? Apart from the fact that everyone's so terribly educated Feel
fr
n which are more fundamental - minds
or universes? I'd say they're both definable and hence exist de facto, and that
each implies the other.
Well, I'm new here. Is there anything I should know about
this list? Apart from the fact that everyone's so terribly educated Feel
fr
57 matches
Mail list logo
