Jacques Mallah wrote:
>--- Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jacques Mallah wrote:
>> > The substrate is all of the math. For example,
>> >you use a substrate, in the form of a UD.
>> This is a too poor definition of substrate. Such
>> definition obliterates the apparent (at least)
>> distinction we make between an immaterial
>> mathematical [being] like PI or a Hilbert Space, and
>> concrete single substancial [being] like my computer
>> screen here, and now. We must explain how *in the
>> math* such distinction appears, and remains
>> (apparently) stable.
> I'm not sure I see your point. What exactly do
>you want to explain?
I was just saying that if we take a purely mathematical
ontology we must adress the problem of explaining
the phenomenology of the apparent concrete singular
substance. Even if we derive the physical laws from the
"mathematical laws" (explaing the absence of wabbits), we
must still explain what appears to be a electron, a moon,
etc. I guess you know that ...
> As you know, I would find the measure distribution
>of conscious computations by counting their
And my remark was that you need to define what is an
implementation without using a physical predicate (if you
say that the physics is in the math). Or you must
explain the appearence of physical predicate from the
math. Beware vicious circles.
> With the UD example, if there is some program in
>the UD'd set that acts like a universe simulation, it
>will probably give rise to most of those.
In case you succeed in proving that, you will be very
near the solution of both the mind/body problem and the
problem of the origin of the physical laws.
Remember that I don't take the "Kolmogorov/schmidhuber"
"prior" solution is enough, although there are
some correct points in it (IMO). (See my older post).
You cannot attach consciousness to ONE program emulated
by the UD, you need to take into account ALL "similar"
We are back to our old dicussion here. You will make
disappear the 3-Wabbits. But with comp (cf UDA) you need
to make disappear the 1-wabbits too. (Do you remember ?)
>have "brains" which are the sub-parts giving rise to
With comp or with QM you will not be able to define in
a univocal way what *is* a sub-part.