dig up the old thread! But I'm not saying comp does
entail invariant physics for all observers, just that if there are
different physics, the substitution level must be very low indeed. Think of
the original scenario in the UDA: a person in Washington is suddenly
annihilated, and then duplicated
not saying comp does entail
invariant physics for all observers, just that if there are different
physics,
the substitution level must be very low indeed. Think of the original
scenario
in the UDA: a person in Washington is suddenly annihilated, and then
duplicated
the
substitution level, whatever any universal machine state can be in. Only
geography will need the anthropic element, the physics needs only a
mathematical statistics on all computation, going in actual state which
are any state.
Physics become a theorem of machine theology, itself a theorem
on all computations
below the substitution level, whatever any universal machine state
can be in. Only geography will need the anthropic element, the
physics needs only a mathematical statistics on all computation,
going in actual state which are any state.
Physics become
by the sum on all computations
below the substitution level, whatever any universal machine state
can be in. Only geography will need the anthropic element, the
physics needs only a mathematical statistics on all computation,
going in actual state which are any state.
Physics become a theorem
up the old thread! But I'm not saying comp does
entail invariant physics for all observers, just that if there are
different physics, the substitution level must be very low indeed.
Think of the original scenario in the UDA: a person
in Washington is suddenly annihilated
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I
think? (Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural
laws remain stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler
than anything asymmetric (although physics contains
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno *did* acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of
physics are invariant across space and time, because they are supposed to
arise out of pure arithmetic
We know from pure mathematics (by way of Noether's theorem
On 5/25/2015 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think? (Isn't there
something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain stable due to symmetry
principles, which are simpler than anything
different
physics
(that is compatible with their existence) ?
I really must dig up the old thread! But I'm not saying comp does entail
invariant physics for all observers, just that if there are different
physics,
the substitution level must be very low indeed. Think
On 5/25/2015 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bruno /did/ acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of physics
are
invariant across space and time, because they are supposed to arise out of
pure
On 26 May 2015 at 04:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think?
(Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain
stable due to symmetry principles, which are
On 25 May 2015 at 05:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/24/2015 2:12 AM, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think?
(Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain
stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler
On 26 May 2015 at 10:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/25/2015 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno *did* acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of
physics are invariant across space and time, because they are
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 , Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno *did* acknowledge that his theory predicts that the laws of
physics are invariant across space and time, because they are supposed to
arise out of pure arithmetic
LizR wrote:
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Of that I have no opinion because nobody knows what comp means,
least of all Bruno.
Comp is the theory that consciousness is the product of Turing-emulable
processes, i.e. that
On 26 May 2015 at 05:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Of that I have no opinion because nobody knows what comp means, least of
all Bruno.
Comp is the theory that consciousness is the product of Turing-emulable
processes, i.e. that it's a computation. The idea that we may one day
it is. But disregarding that, if electron mass is geographical, and there
are other observers who observe different electron masses, then the
substitution level has to be really, really low. (According to my logic,
though I'm open to correction.)
Even without comp, I think the evolution of life requires
of
their mathematical configuration. If we find that there are observers in
other universes who experience different physics, then it must be the case
that the substitution level for those observers includes their entire
universe.
But I have to admit I can't see how one gets from the UDA to physics
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think?
(Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain
stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler than anything
asymmetric (although physics contains some asymmetries, of course, like
matter vs
physics for all observers, just that if there are different
physics, the substitution level must be very low indeed. Think of the
original scenario in the UDA: a person in Washington is suddenly
annihilated, and then duplicated in Helsinki and Moscow (or whatever). That
operation creates a 50
On 5/24/2015 4:43 AM, Pierz wrote:
Quite. Materialism has something of a head-start.
Not really. Spiritualism and animism ruled the world for millenia before Galileo and even
before Democritus and Aristotle. The idea that consciousness controlled clouds, planets,
disease, seas, plants,...
On 5/24/2015 2:12 AM, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think? (Isn't there
something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain stable due to symmetry
principles, which are simpler than anything asymmetric (although physics contains some
who observe different physics (that is
compatible with their existence) ?
Those with different physics will have measure zero. Why? Because the
laws of physics must be given by the sum on all computations below the
substitution level, whatever any universal machine state can be in.
Only
of the parameters which determined
physical, there is only a single solution which permits life? There
might be many different
There are many different, but below our substitution level, we must
find the burred sum of all computation leading to my (first person)
experience.
Those laws
dig up the old thread! But I'm not saying comp does entail
invariant
physics for all observers, just that if there are different physics, the
substitution level must be very low indeed. Think of the original scenario
in the
UDA: a person in Washington is suddenly annihilated
, the substitution
level must be very low indeed. Think of the original scenario in the UDA: a person in
Washington is suddenly annihilated, and then duplicated in Helsinki and Moscow (or
whatever). That operation creates a 50% probability of finding oneself in Helsinki or
Moscow
measurements of the mass of the Higgs
boson, which are strongly suggestive of a multiverse might be seen as
empirical evidence against 'comp'. Yet there is a way - namely an
*extremely* low substitution level. You'll recall that the substitution
level is the level at which a digital substitute can
level. You'll recall that the substitution
level is the level at which a digital substitute can be made for a brain
such that the self (whatever that is) survives the substitution. This might
be quite high - perhaps its sufficient to mimic neuronal interconnections
in software? Or it might be very
evidence against 'comp'. Yet there is a way - namely an
*extremely* low substitution level. You'll recall that the substitution
level is the level at which a digital substitute can be made for a brain
such that the self (whatever that is) survives the substitution. This might
be quite high
in arithmetic, including ones who observe different physics
(that is compatible with their existence) ?
I really must dig up the old thread! But I'm not saying comp does entail
invariant physics for all observers, just that if there are different
physics, the substitution level must be very low
Stephen King wrote:
PS, to Russell: I think that you are conflating consciousness
with self-awareness in section 9.5 of your book. wlEmoticon-
sadsmile[1].png The two are not the same thing. Consciousness
is purely passive. Self-awareness is active in that is involves
the continuous modeling
. Is the notion of an
“observer moment” corresponding to “the smallest possible
conscious experience” related to Bruno’s concept of substitution
level? ISTM that both act like the idea of a coarse graining on an
ensemble that is used to define the entropy of a system in that
all of the members
On 5/1/2011 3:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
It does not exist ontologically, but still exist (and is
unavoidable) epistemologically. X can exist, but the UDA shows that it
would be without any explanatory purpose: we cannot attach
consciousness to it, so we have no choice, for explaining the
From: meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 7:24 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Max Substitution level = Min Observer Moment?
On 5/1/2011 3:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
It does not exist ontologically, but still exist (and is unavoidable)
epistemologically. X can
to “the smallest possible conscious experience” related
to Bruno’s concept of substitution level? ISTM that both act like the idea of a
coarse graining on an ensemble that is used to define the entropy of a system
in that all of the members of the ensemble that are indistinguishable from
201 - 236 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
