--- 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?
> > When I get my criterion for implementation, and
> >neuroscience tells us more about which computations
> >the human brain does, it will be as precise as can
> >be expected.
> Independently of finding the computation the
> human brain does, the DU will do it infinitely
> often. How will then you attach consciousness to a
> single brain, and what is that brain made of ?
As you know, I would find the measure distribution
of conscious computations by counting their
implementations. That's all that really matters.
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. It will
have "brains" which are the sub-parts giving rise to
such. All of this is just extra definitions for the
sake of convenience.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!