On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > > > > > But if numbers can "just exist", and matter can "just exist", then why > > can't conscious experiences "just exist"? > > Numbers can just exist, and this is the last unsolvable mystery. Yet > we can explain (assuming comp) why this mystery is absolutely > unsolvable. It is not possible to explain numbers without assuming > numbers (or combinators, etc.) > Matter cannot exists primitively, but can exist as appearance for some > numbers, and those appearance obeys laws, reducible to the math of > universal numbers. > Consciousness also, but is more fundamental than matter: NUMBER => > CONSCIOUSNESS => MATTER, is the probable "causal" (in some precise > number theoretical sense) relation. > (probably even NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => MATTER => HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS => HUMAN NUMBERS). Here the last two steps would explain > why we don't accept easily (intuitively) the origin). > > That is interesting, why would you say NUMBER => CONCIOUSNESS => MATTER is more probable than NUMBER => MATTER => CONSCIOUSNESS? Is it related to Boltzmann's theory of independent brains being more probable than whole universes? To your second point, about NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => MATTER => HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS => HUMAN NUMBERS, what is the purpose/role of the consciousness step prior to matter? How does consciousness support matter that supports human consciousness? > > > > Why do my conscious experiences have the particular contents that they > > do? > > Again, here we can explain why we cannot explain this. Like we can > explain that no one can explain why it has been reconstituted in > Washington and not in Moscow (or vice-versa). This is what we can call > geography/history, by opposition to physics which studies laws (of the > observable by universal machine). Laws are universal. In my youth I > thought that physics was a sort of geography. Now I know that comp > preserve a big body of physical laws. The multiverse is the same for > all observers, (machine and non machine, really, except those 'quite > close to the unique "one") > That is very interesting, what do you mean by those close to the unique one? Would these be observers which appear early on in the Dovetailer Algorithm? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
