Ah - you've just pointed out the fallacy in my last post. I retract
it. This is a nicer problem than I had imagined.> -----Original Message----- > From: Gilles HENRI [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 4:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Why physical laws > > > I'm just skimming atthe moment, but the idea of " universes > >containing SAS apparently observing a environment without physical laws." > >seems absurd. How can a process occur, such as the process of observing, > >without athe necessary sequence appearing to obey laws? > > James, here you assume that the conscious process derives from physical > laws, exactly what I support. In the "everything computable exists", > nothing prevents to generate Universes where conscious structures do > exist, > but don't have a proper representation of their environment (which may not > exist at all..). That's just like producing fake images with computers. > What I fear is that these universes would be much more numerous than those > where conscious structures have > this proper representation, just as if you generate all possible images, > you will get > 1) mostly non-interpretable images > 2) interpretable images not corresponding to realistic situations (flying > elephants and so on...) > 3) images corresponding to realistic situations. > > with of course n(1)>>n(2)>>n(3) > > But nature produces only type (3) images... > > Gilles >
